ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Amnesty International Report

Naomi Long: What assessment she has made of the Amnesty International report entitled “Northern Ireland: Time to deal with the past”, published in September 2013; and if she will make a statement.

Theresa Villiers: Let me first express my sadness at the passing of Alec Reid and Eddie McGrady, who will be sadly missed as strong supporters of peace in Northern Ireland.
	I have considered the proposals in the recent report by Amnesty, which covers devolved responsibilities in the main, but also covers some reserved matters relating to Northern Ireland’s past. I expect the all-party group chaired by Richard Haass also to take account of Amnesty’s contribution to the debate on these important matters.

Naomi Long: This morning I hosted the parliamentary launch of the report, which reinforces the need for a comprehensive mechanism to deal with the past, addressing justice, truth, recognition and support for the bereaved and the injured, and also reconciliation. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that the Government will support, co-operate with and properly resource any such comprehensive process emerging from the Haass talks, allowing the Police Service of Northern Ireland to focus its finite resources on policing the present, and, in particular, protecting our community from those—from both loyalist and republican sources—who wish to drag us back to the past?

Theresa Villiers: Let me take this opportunity to reiterate the calls made in Northern Ireland in the wake of recent attacks. There is determination that Northern Ireland will not be dragged back to its past, and there is universal condemnation of the disgraceful attacks that we have seen in recent days.
	The Government strongly support the Haass process. We welcomed its establishment, and we urged the Executive to examine the very divisive issues involved. We will, of course, consider the outcome of the process very seriously, and will give thought to what resources we can deploy to support it within the constraints of the budgets available to us.

Philip Hollobone: The report states that
	“there are longstanding allegations that Irish authorities turned a blind eye to arms smuggling across the border and to members of republican groups fleeing—after attacks had been carried out—back to the Republic of Ireland”.
	Will my right hon. Friend raise that aspect of the report with the Irish authorities to ensure their full co-operation?

Theresa Villiers: I shall be happy to do so. Let me add, however, that the security co-operation between the police services north and south of the border has never been stronger. It is hugely important in combating the threat not just from dissident republicans, but from other criminals who seek to use the border to enhance their criminal activities. We continue to work with the authorities in the Republic of Ireland to establish how we can enhance our security co-operation with them.

Paul Goggins: The Amnesty report contains a section on inquests. Has the Secretary of State been offered any explanation of why the Attorney-General in Northern Ireland, who has ordered the reopening of more than 40 historic inquests, now seems to believe that they should be abandoned?

Theresa Villiers: The Attorney-General’s remarks were patently made on his own behalf rather than that of the Northern Ireland Executive or the Government, and they received almost universal criticism. The Prime Minister has made clear that we have no plans to introduce an amnesty along the lines suggested by the Attorney-General—and yes, I acknowledge that there is a degree of contradiction between his actions and his comments in relation to inquests.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Secretary of State go a bit further and tell the House what action she is prepared to take to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done, rather than justice and the process of law being abandoned, which is what a senior law officer in Northern Ireland wants to happen?

Theresa Villiers: The Government are entirely committed to the integrity of the rule of law, and we will maintain our position. I think it important for the outcome of the Haass discussions also to abide by that principle, and to be consistent with maintaining the integrity of the rule of law.

Alasdair McDonnell: Does the Secretary of State agree that all the victims out there still need truth and justice, and, indeed, are entitled to truth and justice? What assessment has she made of last week’s “Panorama” programme about the military reaction force and the murders committed by its members?

Theresa Villiers: Let me take this opportunity to emphasise how important it is for victims to be at the centre of any proposals on dealing with the past. That was also emphasised during the Democratic Unionist party’s Opposition day debate. The allegations made in the “Panorama” programme have been referred to the police, and it is for the police to investigate them. I should stress that when the troops were operational in Northern Ireland they operated according to strict rules, and that
	the vast majority of the police and the Army officers who served there during the troubles were entirely courageous, supportive, and compliant with the rule of law.

Ivan Lewis: May I begin by associating myself with the Secretary of State’s comments about Father Alec Reid? On the Amnesty report, will the right hon. Lady go further in agreeing with me that the problem with last week’s proposals from Northern Ireland’s Attorney-General is that they would deliver neither truth nor justice, and that instead of healing the wounds of the past, they would cause them to fester even further?

Theresa Villiers: The death of Father Alec Reid is a very sad loss. He played a key part in establishing the peace process, particularly in its early stages. As I have said, the Government have no plans to follow the advice of the Northern Ireland Attorney-General. I do not believe that it represents a viable solution to the past, and it received almost universal condemnation. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, it would result in significant problems, and many victims would feel real concern if people advocated that we follow that route.

Ivan Lewis: Will the Secretary of State assure us that she is working with the Irish Government to engage with all parties involved in the Haass talks to seek a comprehensive framework to address the past? Such a framework needs to deal with truth, justice and reconciliation in a meaningful and substantive way. Tinkering at the edges will be seen as a missed opportunity with potentially lasting consequences, and it is essential that the Secretary of State shows leadership at this crucial time.

Theresa Villiers: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am very supportive of the Haass process and very engaged with the Irish Government. I have had discussions with all the political parties on these crucial matters. I have also had a number of helpful discussions in the United States about how our American friends can continue their role of supporting Northern Ireland’s political leadership in the difficult decisions that it needs to make on the issues that are the subject of the Haass process.

Building a Shared Future

Bob Blackman: What recent discussions she has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on building a shared future in Northern Ireland.

Theresa Villiers: I have discussed the importance of tackling sectarian divisions and building a shared society with the Northern Ireland Executive on many occasions, most recently with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on 11 November. They both agree on the importance of delivering the commitments set out in their strategy document “Together: Building a United Community”.

Bob Blackman: The disturbances over the summer confirmed that there is much work to be done on building a just and fair society in Ulster. What will my right hon. Friend do to ensure that the community relations strategy announced by the Northern Ireland Executive is brought to fruition?

Theresa Villiers: We very much welcome the publication of the strategy. It was something that the UK Government had encouraged, and we worked with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on it. When it is delivered, it will make a real difference to starting to heal the sectarian divisions that have been so divisive and corrosive and that can feed the scenes of disgraceful violence in Northern Ireland. The important challenge now is to ensure that the commitments in that strategy are delivered, and the Government will continue to encourage the Northern Ireland Executive to do that.

Jim Shannon: If we are to achieve a shared future for Northern Ireland, it is important that the threat of terrorism should be addressed. Is the Secretary of State aware that the dissident republicans’ failed mortar attack at Cullyhanna in South Armagh showed a level of sophistication and technological detail that had never been seen before in Northern Ireland but that has been recorded in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Perhaps that shows international terrorism links. Will she tell us what steps she is taking to eradicate the dissident republican threat in Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: I have been briefed on that attack. It and all the others we have seen in recent weeks are a matter of grave concern. The sad fact is that the threat of terrorism from dissident republicans continues to be severe; it has been set at that level since 2009. That is why the Government remain absolutely vigilant and completely supportive of the PSNI and the extra visibility mechanisms that it is deploying in Belfast. We have deployed an extra £200 million in funding to assist the PSNI and its partners in tackling this threat, and we will continue to give them every support.

Stephen Lloyd: On the economic shared future, will the Secretary of State tell me what work is being done on the legacy of this year’s Derry-Londonderry UK city of culture to ensure that the benefits continue to come to the city and to the whole of Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: I am confident that there will be a very positive legacy. Interestingly, I am sure that the legacy will be felt on both sides of the border, because this is having a significant impact on areas in the south, too. We are determined that there will be a legacy from successful events such as the city of culture and the G8 meeting. That is one reason why the Prime Minister attended an investment conference a couple of months ago to promote Northern Ireland as a great place to do business, following on from the success of the G8 meeting.

Lady Hermon: Will the Secretary of State be so kind as to agree to come to my constituency to meet various loyalist communities to discuss their positive contribution to a shared future that we all want to enjoy?

Theresa Villiers: I am happy to do that, and I believe that our respective offices are in discussions about a date. It is very important to distinguish between the small minority of extremists within the loyalist community, who might have been responsible for the disgraceful scenes of rioting, from the vast majority, who are committed to peace and want to help to build a shared future for Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady makes the point well.

Policing and Security

Karl McCartney: What recent discussions she has had with the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland on policing and security issues.

Theresa Villiers: I hold regular meetings with the Chief Constable of the PSNI, and we speak frequently by phone. We discuss a range of subjects, including police resourcing and the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Karl McCartney: My right hon. Friend will be aware that so-called punishment attacks continue to be carried out in Northern Ireland by both loyalist and republican groups. Will she condemn these acts of barbarism and give the House an indication as to what the PSNI is doing to counter those criminals who prey on communities across parts of Northern Ireland?

Theresa Villiers: I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s condemnation of these brutal attacks. We have seen a number of horrific attacks along these lines: the murder of Kevin Kearney, the attack on Jemma McGrath and, distressingly, an attack on a 15-year-old boy in recent weeks. These vigilante attacks are cowardly, ruthless and callous, and they are utterly unacceptable. I know that the PSNI is doing all it can to bring those responsible to justice.

Nigel Dodds: Does the Secretary of State agree that the despicable terrorist attack on Belfast city centre at the weekend and other recent attacks represent a grave escalation in dissident terrorist activity, in an attempt to undermine investment, jobs and tourists coming to Northern Ireland? Can she give an assurance that she will stand with the people of Northern Ireland and the Executive in their determination to move ahead and not let these people drag us backwards?

Theresa Villiers: I can. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Northern Ireland’s political leadership and the whole community in condemning these attacks and in supporting the determination to continue to make progress in Northern Ireland. These attacks are disgraceful; they could have put many lives at risk, and they are deliberately aimed at disrupting the economy in Northern Ireland and sowing the seeds of community division. I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland will not let the dissidents succeed in their objective of dividing our community.

Nigel Dodds: I thank the Secretary of State for that assurance. Can she go further and say that she will commit herself to working closely with the Executive, the police and the security forces in Northern Ireland to look at what extra measures can be put in place to increase the operational capacity of the police, and to examine legislative changes which will enhance intelligence gathering for the security forces?

Theresa Villiers: I am happy to give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance on both those points. We always look at ways in which the effectiveness of the police can be enhanced. Of course, there is a debate to be had on the Executive’s resourcing of the police in the next spending review. We are working with the police on that, and it is very important.

Laurence Robertson: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of whether all paramilitary organisations are observing ceasefires? Does she agree that if any are not doing so, they are betraying rather than serving the people they purport to represent?

Theresa Villiers: I completely agree, and I think that my hon. Friend puts it very well when he says that paramilitary groups that come off their ceasefire are betraying the communities they purport to represent. My understanding is that, at the moment, no paramilitary organisations have come off their ceasefire, although I am, of course, well aware of the concerns felt about individual members of the Ulster Volunteer Force who are involved in criminality in east Belfast. The police are taking action to counter that.

Stephen Pound: Small business Saturday is important throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, but it is especially important in Northern Ireland. Last Friday, business people in Belfast and in Comber told me of their concerns and fears that the planned protests this Saturday will overshadow all the good work of small business Saturday. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the PSNI will receive the resources and assistance it needs to ensure that positive images are not drowned out by chaotic cacophony from the streets?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman puts his point well. We are entirely supportive of the efforts that the police will make to police the protest. I urge everyone involved to ensure that their protest is not only peaceful but entirely lawful and complies with the decision of the Parades Commission. I also call on them to think again about whether this is a wise thing to do. Although it will be disruptive, Belfast will be open for business. Many people will be out in the city centre doing their Christmas shopping despite the protest disruption.

Worklessness

Karl Turner: What steps she is taking to reduce worklessness in Northern Ireland.

Nicholas Dakin: What steps she is taking to reduce worklessness in Northern Ireland.

Andrew Robathan: I am answering these questions together as they use exactly the same wording, which is a rather strange coincidence.

Karl Turner: Northern Ireland has a higher population of young people than any other region in the UK. Nearly one in four of them is without a job. Does the Secretary of State have a plan to get them back to work?

Andrew Robathan: Specific measures on this issue are for the Northern Ireland Executive. However, the economic pact we concluded with them in June will help to rebalance the economy and improve employment prospects. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the number of those
	who are unemployed in Northern Ireland has fallen dramatically over the past year, and the number of employee jobs has increased by more than 5,000.

Nicholas Dakin: Worklessness contributes to one in four children in Northern Ireland being in severe poverty, which is double the UK average. What are the Government doing about that?

Andrew Robathan: Worklessness, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive, but we support them in their stand to increase employment and reduce the number of people on unemployment benefit. The best route out of poverty is through work. As he will know, we are turning the corner on the economy, which is increasing employment both in the United Kingdom as a whole and in Northern Ireland specifically.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister of State agree that it is difficult to tackle unemployment when the major bank in Northern Ireland is implicated in a report that shows that the Royal Bank of Scotland was responsible for making viable businesses go to the wall in order to plunder their assets? Will he ensure that any investigation arising from the Tomlinson report includes the activities of Ulster bank and how it dealt with businesses in Northern Ireland?

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue, and I agree with him, of course. That is not the specific responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office; it is more for the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. However, I absolutely support what he says. Everyone in the Chamber should deprecate the actions of any bank that has been pushing small businesses out of business.

Margaret Ritchie: As part of the need to address worklessness in Northern Ireland, will the Minister have immediate discussions with his ministerial colleagues in the Treasury to address the issue of the closure, in March 2015, of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs centre in Newry, which makes a major contribution to the local economy in the southern part of my constituency? Will the Minister meet my colleagues and me to discuss that important issue?

Andrew Robathan: I am happy to meet the hon. Lady and her colleagues. We should be clear that any redundancies in HMRC in Newry are voluntary. Nobody likes to see people lose their jobs be it voluntarily or otherwise. However, I say gently to her that the way in which people do business with HMRC and other Government agencies is changing, with much more being done online. I think she would agree that the most important thing is that customers of HMRC—the taxpayers—get a decent service. It might be the case that by doing business online there is less need for the current number of employees.

Welfare Reforms

Debbie Abrahams: What recent assessment she has made of the effect of the Government’s welfare reforms on Northern Ireland.

Mark Lazarowicz: What recent assessment she has made of the effect of the Government’s welfare reforms on Northern Ireland.

Andrew Robathan: When fully implemented, the introduction of universal credit will make over 3 million low to middle-income households in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK better off. These reforms will ensure work always pays and help lift people out of poverty by helping them into work.

Debbie Abrahams: Given that families in Northern Ireland are on average £800 a year worse off under this Government, will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to ease the cost of living crisis in Northern Ireland?

Andrew Robathan: First, I do not recognise the figure that the hon. Lady has used, although I am sure that it has been put out by Labour party headquarters. As I have said in answer to previous questions, the way in which we can help people to prosper in Northern Ireland, as we all want, is to improve the economy and to get people into well-paid work. That is what we are doing. We are rebalancing the economy away from the disproportionate number of public sector employees in Northern Ireland. Currently, 30% of people in Northern Ireland are employed in the public sector whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom the figure is only 20%.

Mark Lazarowicz: Some 32,000 households in Northern Ireland are affected by the bedroom tax. Although existing tenants are exempt, new tenants will be hit by the fact that the vast majority of social housing in Northern Ireland has three bedrooms or more. Is that not just another example of how the bedroom tax is unworkable? It is costing more money than it saves and should be abolished in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the UK.

Andrew Robathan: The purpose of social housing is to help those who cannot afford their own housing, which I welcome. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to discuss with his constituents and, indeed, the people of Northern Ireland whether the general taxpayer should pay for unnecessary housing for people who do not use it. That is why we are ending the spare room subsidy and that, I think, is supported by the people of Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman might find that he is on the wrong side of the argument with his constituents.

Mr Speaker: Order. These are extremely important matters affecting people in Northern Ireland and there is far too much noise. Let us hear the Rev. William McCrea.

William McCrea: But does the Minister of State not accept that if what was termed the “bedroom tax” here on the mainland was introduced in Northern Ireland, it would cause rent arrears to rocket, cause havoc across settled communities and increase already high levels of poverty?

Andrew Robathan: I am afraid that I do not entirely accept that. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right. I know that the Northern Ireland Executive are considering, through the discretionary housing payments, having a transitional period, which is sensible. If he asks his constituents in Northern Ireland whether they believe that the general taxpayer should support extra accommodation for people in social housing, he will find that most of them do not.

Alex Cunningham: Does the Minister agree with the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning)that Northern Ireland is getting the best deal on welfare when changes could potentially take £450 million a year out of vulnerable people’s—[Interruption.]

Andrew Robathan: I am afraid that I did not entirely hear the question, as it is a little noisy in the Chamber.

Alex Cunningham: Does the Minister agree with the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, that Northern Ireland is getting the best deal on welfare when changes could potentially take £450 million a year out of vulnerable people’s pockets?

Andrew Robathan: I agree with commentators in Northern Ireland, including the Belfast Telegraph, which stated:
	“Quite simply, we cannot pretend that we can have it both ways; that we can continue to benefit from the Treasury—we get back more than we raise in taxes—while people in other parts of the UK suffer from the reforms.”
	These are necessary welfare reforms across the United Kingdom. We support them and I think the hon. Gentleman will find that his constituents support them, too—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is still rather a lot of noise. Let us have a courteous hearing for Mr Andrew Bridgen.

Investment Conference

Andrew Bridgen: What assessment she has made of the effect of the investment conference held in Belfast in October 2013.

Theresa Villiers: The investment conference was attended by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and successfully highlighted the many benefits of doing business in Northern Ireland. Although it is too early to assess the full impact, Invest Northern Ireland has said that it is actively engaging with a number of companies as a direct result of the conference.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Northern Ireland is a fantastic location to do business, as demonstrated by the firms that have already invested there, such as Allstate, HBO and Bombardier? Does she also agree that what would be disastrous for the Northern Irish economy as a location for investment and jobs would be any repeat of the scenes we saw because of the flag protest in the run-up to last Christmas and earlier this year?

Theresa Villiers: I agree that there have been tremendous success stories in Northern Ireland in terms of inward investment, including the ones that my hon. Friend has mentioned and others like the New York Stock Exchange. It is true that riots on the streets are a huge deterrent to inward investment and I strongly urge anyone involved in protesting to make sure that their protests are both peaceful and entirely lawful.

David Simpson: Will the Secretary of State agree with me that we need to see more conferences of this type? It was successful; investment will come from it. But will she also agree that the companies that attended it were impressed by the skills base in Northern Ireland and the innovation shown by companies?

Theresa Villiers: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The education system in Northern Ireland produces some tremendous results. Its two universities are producing thousands of excellent graduates every year. That is one of the reasons why companies investing in Northern Ireland are so successful. They may come for the low cost base but they stay for the people.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Stephen McPartland: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 27 November.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Stephen McPartland: This week I have launched a cross-party campaign with the support of the GMB union, to provide justice for the 3,213 workers and their families who were victims of blacklisting by 44 construction companies. We have written to all the companies involved and will post their responses on our website, stoptheblacklisting.com. Will the Prime Minister join me in this campaign to support hard-working people and stamp out the terrible disease of blacklisting?

David Cameron: I am very glad to join my hon. Friend and I congratulate him on the work that he has done on this issue. Blacklisting is illegal and wrong. This sort of intimidation is wrong, just as intimidation of non-striking workers, or indeed managers, is wrong. I am happy to condemn both forms of intimidation and I hope that others will as well.

Edward Miliband: Following his U-turn on payday lending, can I ask the Prime Minister why he has moved in two short months from believing that intervening in broken markets is living in a “Marxist universe” to believing that it is a solemn duty of Government?

David Cameron: As I have said, there are some dreadful practices that take place in the payday lending market. There are some very disturbing cases. And frankly, for 13 years, Labour did absolutely nothing
	about it. So I am proud of the fact that we have intervened to regulate this market properly, and we are also going to be putting in place a cap. But let me be very fair to the right hon. Gentleman: I followed very carefully his interview on “Desert Island Discs” and I think it is fair to say he is no longer a follower of Marx; he is loving Engels instead.

Edward Miliband: You would have thought the right hon. Gentleman would be spending his time trying to be the Prime Minister, Mr Speaker. What is surprising is that the Chancellor said, just a few weeks ago, that
	“attempts to fix prices…crush endeavour and blunt aspiration”.
	For the avoidance of doubt, can the Prime Minister reassure us that his U-turn had nothing to do with the prospect of losing a vote in Parliament the following day?

David Cameron: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has had a slight sense of humour failure. I do not think that is a very good start to these exchanges. I have done a little bit of research, and in three years he has never asked me a question about payday lending—not once, not a single question. I have been asked about all sorts of things. Look, it is right to intervene when markets are not working and people are getting hurt. That is what we are doing. Labour had 13 years. They looked at a cap in 2004 and they rejected it. That was when the right hon. Gentleman was working in the Treasury. We have looked at a cap. We have looked at the evidence from Australia, Florida and elsewhere. It is the right thing to do and I am proud that we are doing it.

Edward Miliband: Even by the right hon. Gentleman’s standards, this is a bit rich. On 22 May 2012, the Government voted against capping payday lenders; on 4 July 2011 they voted against capping payday lenders; and on 3 February 2011 they voted against capping payday lenders. We were for it; they were against it. Now clearly, he wants to claim that this is a principled decision, so can the Prime Minister explain why the Government intervening to cap the cost of credit is right, but the Government capping energy bills is communism?

David Cameron: I feel like one of those radio hosts who say, “And your complaint is, caller, exactly?” We are taking action, but they did not. We are doing the right thing. The right hon. Gentleman should stand up and congratulate us. He wants to turn to energy, so let me turn specifically to that. The point is, we do not have control of the international price of gas, so we need more competition to get profits down and roll back the costs of regulation to get prices down. That is a proper energy policy. We know his version of intervention: take money off the Co-op and don’t ask any questions.

Edward Miliband: Here is the reality. This is not a minor policy adjustment—it is an intellectual collapse of the Government’s position. For two months, they have been saying that if we take action to intervene in markets it is back to the ’70s—it is Marxism—but now they realise that they are on the wrong side of public opinion. That is the reality. On energy, the Prime Minister must realise—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. We will get through Question Time, however long it takes. I appeal to Members simply to calm down and think of the electorate, whom we are here to serve—very straightforward.

Edward Miliband: They are shouting because they have no answer, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister must realise the gravity of the situation, as figures this week show that there were 31,000 deaths as a result of the cold winter, with about 10,000 as the result of cold homes. Can he explain how things will be better this winter than they were last?

David Cameron: What there will be this winter—and this is a vitally important issue—are the cold weather payments that we have doubled from their previous level. The winter fuel payment will be in place, as will the warm home discount, which helps 2 million people in our country. Last year’s increase in the pension of £5.30 a week will be in place. Every excess death in the winter is a tragedy, and there were 31,000 last year. The right hon. Gentleman might care to recall that when he was energy Secretary there were 36,500.

Edward Miliband: I asked the Prime Minister a very specific question: how are things going to be better this winter than last? The reality is that prices will be higher this winter than last. For the average household, the British Gas bill went up £123 this week. It was also revealed that the profits of the energy companies were up 75% in the last year alone. Why, under his Government, is it acceptable for the British people to pay exorbitant prices to fund exorbitant profits?

David Cameron: What is intellectual incoherence is not to address the fact that there were 36,500 winter deaths when the right hon. Gentleman was standing here as energy Secretary. That number was lower last year. What is intellectually incoherent is to promise a price freeze for 20 months’ time when we do not control the global price of gas—that is completely incoherent and a total con. When we are on the collapse of intellectual positions, more borrowing, more spending and more taxing are exactly the things that got us into this mess in the first place, and he remains committed to each and every one.

Edward Miliband: I will tell you what is the con, Mr Speaker. It is saying one thing before the election and another thing as Prime Minister. Here is what the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) said about him. He likes reading out tweets, so perhaps he will listen to this one:
	“‘If the PM can casually drop something that was so central to his identity, he can drop anything.’… #greencrap”.
	That is this Prime Minister all over. The truth is that any action he takes on the cost of living crisis is because he has been dragged there kicking and screaming. On the cost of living crisis, he is not the solution—he is the problem. Nobody believes that he or his Cabinet have any sense of the pressures facing the people of Britain.

David Cameron: I think everyone can recognise a collapse when they see one, and we just saw one right now. Is it not interesting? The week before the autumn statement, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot ask about the economy because it is growing. He cannot ask
	about the deficit because it is falling. He cannot ask about the numbers in work because they are rising. People can see that we have a long-term plan to turn our country around, and people can also see him sitting in his room, desperate for bad news to suit his own short-term political interests.

George Freeman: One in eight men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, the silent killer of middle-aged men. Survival rates have risen from 30% to 80% because of breakthroughs in genetics, diagnostics and drugs, and because of charities such as Movember, which has gone from five blokes raising $500 to the world’s biggest prostate charity raising $300 million. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet me and representatives of UK research charities to see what we can do to make the NHS adopt innovation more quickly?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. Everyone wants to see more research and better outcomes for prostate cancer. May I personally praise him for that magnificent growth on his top lip? I have noticed the number of my colleagues, and others on these Benches, suddenly resembling banditos. It is not something that I am fully capable of myself, so I am jealous of that. It is an important campaign. Better diagnosis, better knowledge and better information are all vital to beat prostate cancer.

Alex Cunningham: The Prime Minister once said that he wanted to see rising living standards for all, not just rewards for those in high finance. Why, then, are real wages down by more than £1,600, while bank bonuses are up by 83%?

David Cameron: What we see happening is that because we are cutting taxes, disposable income went up last year. What we have done is lift the first £10,000 that people earn out of tax altogether. That is worth £700 for every person who pays that tax. That is something that the hon. Gentleman should welcome. In addition, we have frozen the council tax, cut the petrol duty, and helped in all sorts of ways with families’ income—every single step opposed by Labour.

Richard Fuller: The Tibbs Foundation provides uplifting support for people living with dementia in Bedfordshire and for their carers. Following his challenge on dementia last year, and ahead of the G8 summit that he will host in London next month, will my right hon. Friend send a message to my constituents about his commitment to achieving real progress on dementia research and care?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. For too long in our country people thought of dementia as a natural part of ageing, rather than what it is, which is a disease that we should be fighting with all the energy with which we are fighting heart disease and cancer. As part of the dementia challenge, we have said that we will double research funding over the lifetime of this Government from £26 million to more than £66 million a year in 2014-15. But we also want to see an increase in diagnosis rates, because getting to grips with dementia early is vital, and we want the diagnosis rate to go from less than a half to two thirds. I think my hon. Friend’s constituents will
	welcome those pledges, and obviously, through our G8 chairmanship, we can galvanise action around the world as well.

Anas Sarwar: For two years the people of Scotland were promised that they would receive a detailed and costed White Paper that would answer all the questions. Instead, they got a thick document full of false promises. In the absence of any detailed costings, it was not a blueprint for independence, but a wish list. Given that the entire White Paper is based on the assumption that Scotland would keep the pound as part of a sterling zone with no plan B, can the Prime Minister tell us whether the lack of that plan B calls into question the entire credibility of the White Paper?

David Cameron: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have been waiting a long time for this document. We were told that it would answer every question, yet there is no answer on the currency, no answer on the issue of EU membership, and no proper answers on NATO. We are just left with a huge set of questions and, for Scottish people, the prospect of a £1,000 bill as the price of separation.

Laura Sandys: We are celebrating a year since new owners took over the former Pfizer site, and with the Prime Minister’s commitment to £40 million for our small and medium-sized enterprises in Kent, we now have 1,400 jobs and 60 companies. Does the Prime Minister agree that when the private sector meets a proactive Government, we can replicate such successes around the country?

David Cameron: First of all, may I praise my hon. Friend for the work that she put in? Clearly, it was a blow when Pfizer made its announcement and its decision. I think that many people thought that that would be end for the site in terms of jobs and investment, but because of the hard work that she has put in—my right hon. Friends the Business Secretary and the Science Minister have also put in a huge amount of work—the enterprise zone is working well and it has attracted over 20 high-tech companies. Pfizer is now staying, with 700 jobs as well. It has been a success and it shows that if you work together with the private sector, you can get good results like this.

Andrew McDonald: The Disability Benefits Consortium of over 50 charities has signed a letter to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions calling for immediate action to exempt disabled people from the bedroom tax. Why on earth do the Prime Minister and his Government refuse to listen?

David Cameron: Obviously, what we have done is to exempt disabled people who need an extra room. This does, I think, come back to a basic issue of fairness, which is this: people in private sector rented accommodation who get housing benefit do not get a subsidy for spare rooms, whereas people in council houses do get a subsidy for spare rooms. That is why it was right to end it, and it is right to end it thinking of the 1.8 million people in our country on housing waiting lists.

Mark Pawsey: I wonder whether the Prime Minister has had a chance to watch any of the fantastic rugby league world cup semi-final match that took place between England and New Zealand at the weekend. The tournament has been a great success, and shortly rugby fans will have the rugby union world cup to look forward to in 2015, with games in England and some games in Wales. Does he agree that this great interest in the game of rugby presents a real opportunity for my constituency to attract visitors to the birthplace of the game?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is the best possible advertisement for his town. I have done a public meeting in his high street and know what a warm, interesting and varied reception you can get in the town of Rugby. It is hard to keep up at the moment with the quantity and quality of rugby union and rugby league games. I made a wager with the New Zealand Prime Minister that I would wear Kiwi cufflinks if they won in the rugby union match. I did so last week but fortunately nobody noticed.

Pete Wishart: The Prime Minister has vowed to fight for the United Kingdom with his head, heart and soul, but when it comes to a debate it is some guts that he needs to find. We now have the blueprint for independence, and we know what his United Kingdom will look like. Will he now stop being a pathetic big feartie and get out and debate the issues with the First Minister?

David Cameron: I am enjoying the debate we are having now; that is where the debate should take place. Of course there should be a debate, including televised debates, but this is a debate between people in Scotland. This is not a debate between the leader of the Conservative party, or even the UK Prime Minister and the Scottish First Minister; it is a debate, rightly, between the leader of the no campaign and the leader of the yes campaign, and they should fight it out on the facts and on the issues. I know the hon. Gentleman wants to find every sort of distraction possible because when it comes to the economy, when it comes to jobs, and when it comes to Europe, all the arguments are for staying together. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: For future reference, Mr MacNeil, you should not be yapping at the Prime Minister like an overexcited puppy dog. It is unseemly. You can do a lot better if you try.

Mary Macleod: Small businesses and traders are the lifeblood of our economy, with 14 million people employed in them. In Brentford and Isleworth, 825 new businesses have been set up in the past two years. In preparation for small business Saturday on 7 December, will my right hon. Friend join me in urging businesses to become business and enterprise champions in all our secondary schools to foster and inspire another generation of entrepreneurs?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, first of all, about the new businesses setting up in Britain. We have 400,000 more businesses than three years ago. The point she makes about
	encouraging businesses into schools to inspire young people about enterprise, about small business, and about what that can involve is really, really important. I would urge all MPs to make the most of small business Saturday, but also, in the visits that they make to primary and secondary schools, to push the case for good business access and good business discussions.

Hazel Blears: Four weeks ago in Eccles, I met Joy Watson, who is 55 years old, a mum and married to Tony. For the past four years, Joy has had problems with her memory and on her 55th birthday she was diagnosed with early-onset dementia. Her family are devastated, but she is an inspirational woman and is now fighting for better services for people in similar circumstances. Will the Prime Minister ensure, at the G8 in London in two weeks’ time, that there will be a real push for an increase in research into the quality of care and support and prevention, as well as into the important search for a cure?

David Cameron: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. There is no one single thing we have to do: the research budget needs to go up—and it is—but we also need to work within the health and social care sectors to improve standards. Frankly, we also need to make our communities more dementia-friendly. Something we can all do is become a dementia friend, which involves a simple, relatively short test and a bit of learning about how to help people with dementia in our communities. It is not just about the health and social care sectors, but about when people are trying to go on a bus, access their bank account or go down to the post office. How they actually live their lives is something we can all make a difference to.

Bob Stewart: Last Friday, on the border between Gibraltar and Spain, the Guardia Civil opened one of our diplomatic pouches, which is a clear breach of our sovereignty. What further measures—political or otherwise—can we take towards Spain to stop this harassment of our people in Gibraltar?

David Cameron: First of all, my hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, because it is a breach of the principle of state immunity and the principles underlying the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. An extremely serious action took place. We asked the Spanish authorities to investigate urgently and they have done so. We have now received an explanation from the Spanish and we are reassured that it will not happen again, but let me be absolutely clear: we will always stand up for the rights of people in Gibraltar and for the sovereignty of Gibraltar.

Gregory Campbell: Earlier the Prime Minister outlined what the Government are doing in relation to fuel poverty over the winter. Does he accept that the further north we go in the United Kingdom, the colder it is, incomes are lower and fuel prices are higher? What additional measures can he undertake to ensure that he alleviates the problems suffered by people in Northern Ireland?

David Cameron: As I said, I think that the cold weather payments are perhaps the key thing, because they are triggered by low temperatures and kick in at
	£25 a week. I think that makes the biggest difference. I outlined all of the things we are doing, including the warm home discount, which the energy companies themselves are putting in place to help tackle fuel poverty. On the previous Government’s fuel poverty measures, fuel poverty is actually lower today than it was when Labour was in office.

Tim Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in Suffolk about using a road toll to pay for improvements to the A14 and the consequent risk that introducing tolls on roads without a toll-free alternative may undermine support for the sensible concept of road pricing?

David Cameron: I am well aware of the strong feelings in Suffolk about this issue and I have been approached about it by many Members of Parliament. I believe that road tolls can play an important part in providing new road capacity and it is important that we find ways to pay for road capacity, but I also understand the concerns about this individual case.

Iain McKenzie: Does the Prime Minister realise that he has something in common with the SNP? He refuses to back Labour’s call for a freeze on energy bills and the plan announced yesterday for an independent Scotland shows clearly that the First Minister will not get to grips with the energy companies. What does the Prime Minister think that says to the millions of Scots who face rocketing fuel bills this winter?

David Cameron: Getting to grips with energy bills means more competition in the market, which we are delivering. We were left the big six by the Labour party. New companies are coming in and people such as the Leader of the Opposition are sensibly deciding to switch their energy supplier, which is a very good Tory principle. We also need to roll back the cost of some of the levies, and we are looking at that as well.

Nick Harvey: The Prime Minister will be aware that MPs from rural areas and across party lines have for many years campaigned for a fair funding formula for schools, ably led by David Kidney, the former Labour MP in the previous Parliament, and by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) in this Parliament. The issue has been brought to a head again and we have been led to expect news shortly. Is the Prime Minister able to reassure pupils and teachers in rural schools that good news is on its way and that they will not be disappointed?

David Cameron: I do understand the concerns, because these funding formulas have built up over many years. There are places in our country that do feel disadvantaged, particularly those in rural areas that can suffer exclusion and poverty, and feel that that is not properly reflected in the funding formula. My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary continues to look at this, and we will see what we can do.

Teresa Pearce: In my constituency, as in many others, small and medium-sized enterprises are the engine room of the economy, so why are business rates rising by an average of nearly £2,000 in this Parliament?

David Cameron: I can tell the hon. Lady what we have done on business rates, which is to extend the freeze on business rates that the last Government were going to get rid of. What we are also doing on business rates is to have a £2,000 cut in national insurance for every business in the country. For small businesses up and down our high streets, I cannot think of anything that will make a bigger difference than seeing their national insurance bill go down by £2,000 and being able to employ more people.
	On the subject of how to help business, how on earth can it be a good idea to say that you want to increase corporation tax as you go into the next Parliament? That seems to me absolutely mad—a new Labour jobs tax.

Eric Ollerenshaw: By the end of this year, more than 8,000 people in our country will have been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, of which only 4% will have even the chance of a five-year survival rate. Those figures have not changed for the last 30 years. Will the Prime Minister join the all-party group on pancreatic cancer and Pancreatic Cancer UK in their aim, which is that it is time to change and improve on those dreadful outcomes?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. An issue always raised by charities campaigning on some of the less well-known and less prevalent cancers is that they do not get a fair share of the research funding. That is an issue that I have taken up with the Health Secretary. We need to make sure that we are spreading research funding and the work we do into cancer fairly across the different disciplines and across the different cancers.

George Mudie: May I repeat that energy companies made 77% more profit per customer in 2012? Does the Prime Minister agree that this is not acceptable, and if so, what immediate steps does he propose to take to protect customers from blatant profiteering?

David Cameron: What we need to do is to create a more competitive energy market. As I said, we inherited a situation with just six big companies. We have seen seven new companies come into the market and the number of people with independent suppliers—such as the Leader of the Opposition—has actually doubled during this Parliament, so we are making progress.
	I always follow what the hon. Gentleman says. Recently, he gave an interview when he went on the radio and said about Labour’s policy: “Do you know, I don’t know our position on welfare, I don’t know our position on education, I don’t know our position on how we’d run the health service?” I think a question about that would be a good thing.

Chris Kelly: The Prime Minister’s plans to restrict benefits to immigrants are wise and welcome. What lessons has my right hon. Friend learned from the failures of the last Labour Government who, despite claiming that just 13,000 Polish immigrants would arrive in the UK, deliberately allowed more than 1 million to come into our country?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Of course there are benefits of free movement within the EU, but there should be proper transition controls. We increased the transition controls on Bulgaria and Romania from five years to seven years when we became the Government, but it still absolutely baffles me why the last Labour Government decided in 2004 to have no transitional controls at all. They predicted 14,000 Polish people would arrive to work in Britain; in the event, the number was over 700,000. It was a shameful dereliction of duty.

Diane Abbott: The Prime Minister will be aware that the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, proposes to close nearly every single ticket office on the London Underground network, with more than 700 jobs being lost. Does the Prime Minister believe that that is the way to raise living standards for ordinary Londoners?

David Cameron: The best way to help Londoners is to ensure that we have a safe and affordable tube, and that we use modern technology to deliver that. The conversation that the hon. Lady needs to have is with the trade union that has done so much damage to our underground. We ought to have no-strike deals on the underground and permanent systems that provide a good service.

Simon Kirby: Earlier this week in Brighton, I was tested for HIV. This Sunday is world AIDS day. In view of the fact that one in five people with HIV in this country does not know that they have it, does the Prime Minister agree that regular testing is to be encouraged?

David Cameron: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, all hon. Members across the House and everyone in politics who campaign so persistently and consistently on this issue. It is vital that we improve the livelihoods of people who have HIV and AIDS in the UK, but it is also vital that we continue working internationally, including through our aid budget, to tackle HIV and AIDS around the world. We can be proud of the money that we have put into things such as the global fund and of the fact that this country has achieved the target of 0.7% of gross national income, when many other countries have broken their promises.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The Prime Minister is very keen to encourage energy users to switch providers to get the best tariff. Why has it been so difficult over the past three years to switch mobile phone providers?

David Cameron: Across all the utilities, we want it to be easier for people to switch. We have done that on banks. It is now easier to switch bank accounts because of the hard work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is now easier to switch energy providers because of the excellent work of the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. It ought to be easier to switch with other utilities. That is an important bit of work that we are doing.

Stephen Gilbert: The number of apprenticeships in Cornwall has doubled since 2010, which is helping to create a stronger economy and a fairer society. Will the Prime Minister meet me and a delegation of young people from Cornwall to see how we can further promote these very worthwhile schemes?

David Cameron: I am delighted with the news about the number of apprenticeships in Cornwall. The Government have made a major financial commitment to funding apprenticeships. That is making a difference, but there is far further to go in tackling youth unemployment and worklessness among people between the ages of 16 and 24. I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps a suitable moment might be when I am in Cornwall.

Geraint Davies: House prices are going up at a time when real wages are going down. Does the Prime Minister accept that when interest rates go up after the election, it will detonate a sub-prime debt crisis of his making?

David Cameron: The greatest danger in terms of interest rates would be to have a Government who believed in more borrowing, more spending and more taxing. That is what would drive up interest rates, that is what would hit the cost of living and that is what every family in this country should dread.

Richard Drax: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Points of order come after statements. That is a well-established feature of our system.
	We will come to the urgent question in a moment. There is another urgent question to follow and a statement by a Minister. I therefore hope that the House will understand that I do not intend to run the first urgent question at great length. It concerns an extremely important matter, but the House will have to treat of it briefly.

Diplomatic Relations (Spain)

Nigel Evans: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Spain in the light of recent escalating events concerning Gibraltar, most recently the searching of a diplomatic bag as it was leaving the Rock.

David Lidington: On Friday 22 November, two British Government bags containing official correspondence and communications, and clearly marked as such, were opened by Spanish officials while the bags were in transit. That represents a serious interference with the official correspondence and property of Her Majesty’s Government, and therefore a breach of the principles underlying the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, and the principle of state immunity. We take any infringement of those principles very seriously.
	Following reports of the incident, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office made representations to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation at senior level over the weekend of 23 and 24 November, and the British Embassy in Madrid submitted a formal written protest to the Ministry on Monday 25 November. In our protests we requested an urgent explanation of the incident from the Spanish Government, and sought assurances that there will be no further interference with the UK’s official correspondence. The unauthorised opening of UK official communications, including diplomatic bags, is a matter of grave concern and we made that clear to the Spanish Government. If the Spanish authorities had concerns about the contents of our bags, internationally accepted practice would require them to contact the British authorities.
	We have now received an explanation from the Spanish Government and been assured that we will not see a repeat of those actions. As the Spanish authorities know, overriding international principles provide for both state immunity and the freedom of official communication between a state and its representatives. Tampering with the bags was a breach of the principles embodied in the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. The UK strictly adheres to those principles, and expects other states to do the same.
	We are maintaining strong pressure on the Spanish Government to de-escalate current tensions and work with us to manage our differences through diplomatic and political routes. A major escalation could harm all parties, not least the many thousands of Spanish families who benefit, directly or indirectly, from the economic prosperity of Gibraltar. The UK wants to maintain a strong bilateral relationship with Spain across a range of policy areas, and such a relationship benefits the interests of this country, Gibraltar and Spain alike. We have reiterated to the Spanish Government the Foreign Secretary’s proposal of April 2012 for ad hoc talks involving all relevant parties, and there have been constructive discussions with the Spanish about these proposals.

Nigel Evans: I am grateful to the Minister of State for that response. As he said, the serious incident last Friday goes against the 1961 Vienna convention on
	diplomatic relations. Official correspondence and diplomatic bags should simply not be tampered with. Last time anything such as this happened was 13 years ago with the Zimbabwean regime of Robert Mugabe—not the best company to be associated with. This is the first time that an EU state or NATO ally has opened a UK diplomatic bag, violating the 1961 Vienna convention. That enormously serious breach comes on top of tedious and spiteful delays at the Gibraltar-Spanish border, and the incursion of a Spanish vessel into waters off Gibraltar. The deterioration of relations between the United Kingdom, Gibraltar and Spain serves nobody well.
	The Spanish ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office last week but clearly that has not had the desired effect. Nobody wants a further escalation of events or further deterioration in relations, but at the same time Spain must be made to know that its actions are intolerable, unwarranted, and will be met with an appropriate response, defending the rights of the people of Gibraltar and respecting international conventions. What actions will Her Majesty’s Government take to ensure that once and for all Spain gets the message? Hands off the Rock!

David Lidington: I think the Spanish authorities are in no doubt about the Government’s resolve and, I believe, the resolve of the House as a whole that there should be no transfer of the sovereignty of Gibraltar to any other country, unless that were freely consented to by the people of Gibraltar. I reiterate that we will not engage in any process of talks or negotiations about sovereignty with which Gibraltar is not content. I hope that that reiteration will be some assurance to my hon. Friend.

John Spellar: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing the urgent question. I reiterate the Opposition’s growing concerns, and those on both sides of the House, about this latest event in a series of events around Gibraltar’s borders.
	We heard yesterday that two diplomatic bags were opened by Spanish police at the Gibraltarian border. It has been reported that the bags were taken from Gibraltar to Seville airport in Spain. As the Minister has rightly said, that represents a serious interference with the official correspondence of Her Majesty’s Government, and a serious breach of both the principles underlying the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations and the principles of state immunity.
	In the written statement before the House today, the Minister says he has received an explanation from the Spanish Government—he reiterated that just now. I am sure Members on both sides of the House would welcome hearing the specific details of that explanation, which were missing from the Minister’s written statement. Will he therefore set out the details of that explanation and say whether they came in writing? Will he agree to lay them before the House by placing them in the House of Commons Library? Will he also set out how long it took to receive the explanation from the Spanish Government once he had become aware of the incident? Will he be clear for the House on whether the British Government have a taken a view that the explanation was sufficient? If it was not sufficient, will he set out what further assurances the Government will seek from Spain on the matter, and how such incidents can be prevented from happening in future?
	Will the Minister tell the House whether the Prime Minister has been in touch with his counterpart in Spain to discuss not just this matter but the series of recent incidents at the Gibraltarian border? Will the Minister also make it clear whether it is the British Government’s view that this was a case of Spanish officials locally failing to follow due process, or whether it was an intentional provocation authorised by the Spanish authorities?
	Following the EU Commission’s observation mission to Gibraltar in September, from which it concluded that there was “no evidence” of Spain’s infringing rules of the border controls, will the Minster call on the Commission to carry out an urgent further mission and investigate any further incidents as they arise?
	Finally, it is vital that the Spanish Government today hear a united statement from the House that such provocative and unlawful acts are not acceptable to this Parliament or to the British people. They cannot be ignored.

David Lidington: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his overall support for the Government’s position. I shall try to answer his questions.
	As I have said, we were alerted to the incident over the weekend, and we made representations to the most senior officials we could reach in Madrid over the weekend. We also ensured that the Spanish authorities at all levels were well aware of the gravity of our concern about the incident.
	The explanation that the Spanish have given to us—it arrived late yesterday—was that there was an error at junior operational level at the crossing point between Gibraltar and Spain, and that the more senior Spanish official present put a stop to that interference with our official correspondence as soon as he realised what was happening.
	As I have said, we have had assurance that such action will not be repeated. We trust that Spain will live fully up to its obligations under the Vienna conventions and international law.

Menzies Campbell: It is rather an easy explanation—is it not?—to say that the decision was taken at junior operational level. If I may say so, I think we are entitled to press the Spanish Government further on the protocol and the understanding of those who have responsibility for these matters at the border. The House will be united in condemnation of any breach of the Vienna convention. Have we had an unequivocal apology for the incident from the Spanish Government at the necessarily highest level, and an equally unequivocal assurance that steps will be taken to ensure that it never happens again?

David Lidington: The protocol that should be observed, not simply at the border between Gibraltar and Spain but at any international crossing point, is that containers that are clearly marked as diplomatic and official correspondence are inviolate under the terms of the Vienna convention. It is true that, from time to time, people at operational level make mistakes. I trust that the Spanish authorities will now show, by their actions, that they will adhere fully to their international obligations.

Gerald Kaufman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) for putting this question. If this alleged error by a jobsworth was the only act of interference and aggression by the Spanish authorities on the frontier with Gibraltar, it might just get by, but it is part of a succession of harassment after harassment after harassment, and it will not do. The Government’s softly, softly approach is simply not working. May I put it to the Minister that if anything like this ever happens again, the Spanish ambassador should be expelled from this country?

David Lidington: Clearly, any repetition, in the light of the weekend’s events, would be a matter of the utmost seriousness. The right hon. Gentleman decries the Government’s approach, but last week we had evidence that it worked in the case of the Spanish oceanographic survey vessel, which mounted an incursion into Gibraltar waters and sought to carry out survey work. Following the Government’s vigorous protests, including summoning the Spanish ambassador, and the strong views expressed in this House, notably in questions put to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) following his oral statement last week, the Spanish vessel pursued its survey work but did not mount any further incursion into British Gibraltar waters. The vessel carried out its survey work within Spanish waters. That shows that we should not write off the Government’s approach.

Andrew Rosindell: The Minister of State must surely now realise that this is a long series of acts of aggression by the Spanish Government against the loyal subjects of Gibraltar, and that the time has come to take firm and decisive action. Is it not time to send the Spanish ambassador back to Madrid?

David Lidington: No.

Peter Hain: I endorse the strong criticism across the House of the serious breach of an international treaty in opening the bag, but may I probe the Minister’s diplomatic strategy to resolve the escalating tension of the past few months? Will he revisit the work done by Lord Howe and Lord Garel-Jones under his party’s leadership in government, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and I under the previous Labour Government, which respects the paramount rights of Gibraltarians but recognises that Spain, currently one of our closest friends, has an historic grievance? Until we bring people together for proper negotiations, we will not resolve these matters.

David Lidington: I would like to see people come together through the ad hoc talks on practical issues, which were proposed in 2012 by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We still hope that it will be possible for such talks to take place. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support, but may I add, as gently as I can, that I do not believe that the example he and the former Foreign Secretary set when they were in government would help? It added hugely to the sense of mistrust in Gibraltar about the intentions of the British Government.

Edward Leigh: Which Royal Navy warships are currently in the waters around Gibraltar, and do not these provocations give the lie to those who have complacently argued for years that the Royal Navy was not important? The best preservation of peace is the strength of the Royal Navy.

David Lidington: No one in this Government has ever decried the importance of the Royal Navy. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on ship deployments.

Nigel Dodds: Spain is a fellow member of the European Union and a NATO ally. What are the Government doing with the member states of both those bodies to bring pressure to bear on the Spanish Government? Surely that is an important aspect.

David Lidington: The most important thing that we can do with fellow members of the European Union and other allied countries—indeed, this is what we have been seeking to do—is draw their attention to the fact that Gibraltar is not some exploited colony; it is a self-governing territory whose people have time and again freely expressed their wish to remain under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

Peter Bone: In order to build more trust with the Gibraltarians, would not it be a good idea for some Royal Navy ships to make a good-will visit there—preferably a couple of gunboats?

David Lidington: Royal Navy vessels make frequent good-will visits to Gibraltar as part of their operations, and I am sure that pattern will continue in future.

Mike Gapes: Hundreds of thousands of British people live in Spain and large numbers of Spanish people live in this country. Many of them will be very concerned about a possible deterioration in the relationship between the two countries. What action will the Minister take to resolve the matter by involving the European Commission again, given that we are both member states of the European Union?

David Lidington: We will always consider trying to involve the European Commission where it has competence, but it does not have competence to determine sovereignty. That sovereignty was set out in the treaty of Utrecht and has been confirmed by the freely expressed vote of the people of Gibraltar many times.

Bob Neill: Does the Minister agree that the explanation that the Spanish Government have given is extraordinary and, frankly, would not pass muster in the Bromley magistrates court, let alone anywhere else? Will he redouble his efforts to explain through our NATO allies that the behaviour of the current Spanish Government, who are stooping to the levels of Franco’s Government, is not that of a NATO ally and is not acceptable? Will he consider reinforcing the naval deployments available to us in Gibraltar?

David Lidington: What would be in the interests of both this country and Spain, as fellow members of NATO and the European Union, would be to take forward talks on practical issues concerning co-operation on matters that affect Gibraltar and the campo, to park the admitted irreconcilable difference over sovereignty and to focus on the wider agenda, where the UK and Spain have a great deal on which they should be able to work together constructively.

Thomas Docherty: Just a few days ago Members on both sides of the House warned that every time the Foreign Office summoned the ambassador there was some sort of nonsense from the Spanish in response. Will the Minister answer the specific question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), which he forgot to answer? Has either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary personally spoken with their counterparts in Spain?

David Lidington: The contacts with the Spanish authorities have been at all appropriate senior levels. We remain ready, in the event of further serious incidents—we hope that will not happen—to make representations to Spain at whatever level we consider appropriate given the circumstances.

Ben Wallace: About 200 metres off the coast of Morocco lies Perejil island, a rocky and disputed outcrop in sight of the Moroccan coast. The Spanish refuse even to negotiate or discuss its position. Perhaps we could help our Spanish allies understand the frustration we feel with this type of interference if we recognised Morocco’s right to the island.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes his point very plainly.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Romanian and Bulgarian Accession

Yvette Cooper: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on Romanian and Bulgarian accession.

Theresa May: In June 2005, the previous Government signed accession treaties with Romania and Bulgaria, and in doing so they granted all Romanians and Bulgarians the right to come to Britain. The treaties came into effect in 2007, and as a result the seven-year transitional controls relating to free movement will end on 1 January 2014. From that date, Romanians and Bulgarians will have the right to largely unrestricted free movement across Europe.
	Unlike the previous Government, who chose not to apply the transitional controls for countries such as Poland and Hungary in 2004, this Government are doing everything we can to ensure that we are prepared for this latest extension in EU free movement rights. First, we are making use of the full seven years available to us to impose transitional controls, something the Labour party failed to do in 2004, which meant that Britain was the only major economy in Europe to grant full access to its labour market to millions of Poles, Hungarians and others.
	Secondly, we are tightening the European immigration regulations to ensure that we do not gold-plate EU free movement rules. We are therefore amending the regulations to create a statutory presumption that a European’s right to reside here ends after six months unless they can prove that they are actively seeking work and stand a real chance of finding it.
	Thirdly, we are taking action to limit the pull factors that attract people to come to Britain. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is introducing a three-month delay before a European jobseeker can claim benefits and a new minimum earnings threshold to ensure that EU nationals are genuinely working in the UK before they can access benefits. He is also developing a tougher six-month test to assess whether benefit claimants have a genuine chance of finding work. That will apply to all EU nationals who come here to look for work and those who have already worked here. Those changes will come into effect as soon as possible in the new year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is ensuring that, wherever possible, the NHS claims back the cost of treating Europeans from their home country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will issue new statutory guidance to ensure that local authorities set a residency requirement, or a minimum period of residence in a community, before a person qualifies for social housing.
	Fourthly, we are ensuring that there is a full and proper operational response to the challenges brought by that extension in free movement. We are working with the police, local authorities and other agencies to identify Europeans who are rough-sleeping and not exercising their treaty right to be in the UK. Where appropriate, those people will be removed. We are also changing the European immigration regulations to
	introduce a 12-month bar on their return to Britain, unless they can prove that they have a proper reason to be here.
	Fifthly, I have lobbied other member states in the Council of Ministers about the abuse of free movement, and there is a growing coalition of support for change. In April this year, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, along with Britain, wrote to the European presidency and the Commission to make the case for change. Although I am pleased that the European Commission has at long last admitted that there is a problem, it is still refusing to do anything meaningful about it.
	Those are the measures we are taking to prepare us for the extension of free movement in January, but in the long term there is much more we need to do. The Prime Minister made it clear at the beginning of the year that any future Government he leads will seek to renegotiate Britain’s relationship with the EU before we hold a referendum, and that referendum will ask the people whether we should be in or out. As I have made clear in the past and reiterate today, that renegotiation must address the problems caused by free movement. Now, in her reply, the shadow Home Secretary needs to tell the House whether she agrees with that renegotiation and referendum and whether she agrees that the renegotiation must address the problems caused by free movement.

Yvette Cooper: For generations, people have come to this country and worked hard to contribute to Britain, building some of our biggest businesses and even becoming Olympic medal winners, but the principle of contribution is an important one, and the controls on immigration must be fair to those who live here. That is why we called for stronger restrictions on benefits for new arrivals from the EU, including proposals eight months ago to strengthen the habitual residence test to make it clear that people should not be able to claim benefits when they first arrive. We also said that the framework for the free movement of labour should be looked at again.
	At the time, the Government dismissed those proposals, but eight months later they have changed their minds. That is welcome, but will the Home Secretary say why she did not bring those proposals forward at the time? It is now the end of November, and accession for Romania and Bulgaria will occur in a month’s time, so will she tell the House which of these measures will be in place by the beginning of January, when the transitional controls for Romania and Bulgaria end? Will the restrictions on jobseeker’s allowance be in by January? Will the housing benefit restrictions be in by January? Will the minimum wage fines be in place by January? If not, why not? We called for these proposals eight months ago, so why the delay?
	We all agree that transitional arrangements should have been in place for the A8 countries. At the time, the Conservative party voted for A8 accession even without transitional arrangements. The Home Secretary’s party also supported the Romanian and Bulgarian accession agreement. The Prime Minister has today claimed that the rules on transitional controls should have been changed at that time, but he did not argue for changing transitional controls then and failed to do anything about changing transitional controls when this Government endorsed Croatian accession in 2011 with exactly the
	same transitional control rules in place. Will she explain why the Prime Minister failed to act in 2011, given what he has said today?
	Neither are the Government doing anything about the impact of accession on the workplace. Most people from Europe come to Britain to work, not to claim benefits, and 1 million British citizens live and work elsewhere in Europe too, yet there is a serious problem of low-skilled migrant workers being exploited, undercutting local workers and responsible businesses too. That is bad for everyone, yet she is doing nothing about it. We have urged her to take action, against recruitment agencies that target only foreign workers; against factories that segregate shifts by nationality; against the loophole in the minimum wage that means migrant workers are put into overcrowded tied accommodation to get round the rules; and against employers in the care sector, for example, who have recruited heavily from abroad but failed to train or to pay the minimum wage. Each time she has refused, so what is she or the Prime Minister doing to address those problems for wages and jobs? Nothing.
	All parties should take a responsible approach to immigration. We will not enter an arms race of rhetoric. Instead, we need practical measures to address people’s concerns. We are glad that the Prime Minister has adopted our proposals on benefit restrictions, but the Government should not have delayed them for eight months so that they will not be in place for January. It is not enough, either. They need to take action over jobs and wages now.

Theresa May: The hypocrisy of the Labour party is absolutely staggering. [Hon. Members: “Out of order!”] The party that despite all the evidence and expert advice—[Hon. Members: “Out of order!”]

Mr Speaker: Order. The temperature is rising. I keep a close eye on these things, and I understood the reference to be a collective reference, not an accusation of individual impropriety. [Interruption.] Order. I do not require any assistance, although the sage nodding of the head by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is always a matter of great parliamentary interest. That is why I took the view I did. I urge Members to be moderate in their use of language, but the Home Secretary is in order.

Theresa May: Despite all the evidence and warnings, the Labour party in government refused to impose transitional controls in 2004, but now it seeks to lecture us about immigration. I do not know whether the shadow Home Secretary has seen a copy of today’s Daily Mail, but it contains a fascinating article written by Britain’s ambassador in Warsaw in 2004, who describes the “incredulity” of the Poles when he told them that Britain would not be imposing transitional controls. He writes that the Polish Government
	“instinctively knew what Tony Blair’s Labour government consistently denied: the immediate abolition of all border restrictions would lead to a surge of”
	their people coming to these shores.
	The Labour Government told us that only 13,000 people would come; the truth was that more than 1 million came. It was the biggest single influx this country has ever experienced, and who suffered as a result? The right hon. Lady talks about doing something
	about wages and jobs. In the five years following Labour’s failure to impose transitional controls, more than 90% of the increase in employment in Britain was accounted for by foreign nationals. Under this Government, thanks to our measures to control immigration and reform welfare, two thirds of the increase in employment has been accounted for by British people.
	But if the right hon. Lady does not want to listen to me or the former British ambassador to Poland, perhaps she should listen to the succession of former Labour Home Secretaries who have admitted what the British people already knew. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) describes the failure to impose transitional controls as a “spectacular mistake”. And let us remember: it was not just European immigration that Labour let get out of control, but all forms of immigration. Under Labour, net immigration reached 2.2 million, which is twice the population of the city of Birmingham.
	I come again to the right hon. Lady’s point about what is being done on wages and jobs. The Labour Government knew just what they were doing. The hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), the Leader of the Opposition’s policy guru, has said that Labour were
	“using migration to introduce a covert 21st century incomes policy.”
	Labour, which claims to be the party of the working man and woman, admits that it used immigration deliberately to keep down wages.
	In answer to the right hon. Lady’s question, I have gone through what the Government are doing to prepare for January: we have been making full use of transitional controls; we are tightening the immigration rules so that we do not gold-plate EU free-movement rules; we are limiting the pull factors that attract people to Britain; we are ensuring a strong operational response to the challenges brought by free movement; and we are working with other member states to cut out the abuse of free movement. She claims we have done nothing about the habitual residency test, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has tightened it, and that is already in operation. We want to renegotiate our relationship with the EU and ensure we address the problems caused by free movement as part of that renegotiation.
	In its 13 years in government Labour did nothing about those issues. The shadow Home Secretary’s comments today show that she has not learned any lessons from 2004, has failed to come up with any solutions of her own and has failed to support our plan to fix the problems caused by free movement in the renegotiation. On this issue, as on others, she has no credibility whatsoever.

James Clappison: My right hon. Friend rightly adverted to the fact that the previous Government, virtually alone among the major economies, allowed unfettered access to this country to the large populations of the accession countries in 2004. Will she assure me that this Government will not do what the previous Government further did, which was, at the same time, to grant a large number of work permits to workers from outside the EU, in a policy that has never been properly explained and remains mysterious to this day, even though it sounds very much as though the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) would like to repeat it.

Theresa May: Indeed, and a leading Labour party Front Bencher has already indicated that a Labour Government might consider increasing levels of immigration, were Labour to come back into power. Certainly this Government have been tightening up not just on the work permit route from outside the EU into the UK, but on every route of access into the UK. As the Conservative party committed to doing before the election and as was agreed in the coalition agreement, the Government have introduced a cap on non-EU economic migration into the UK. We have a limit on the number of people who can come here as tier 2 workers and we have reformed the other routes, and I am pleased to say that as a result we have seen immigration from outside the EU fall.

Keith Vaz: Of course it is right for all Governments to target abuse of benefits. Will the Home Secretary reassure us, however, that this measure is not designed specifically to deal with Romanians and Bulgarians as the transition ends in just 30 days’ time? Does she agree that the real issue is the push and pull factors? That is why it is necessary to work with the Romanian and Bulgarian Governments to find out the reasons and causes of this migration. Romania has not as yet accessed 87% of the funds it was given on accession. We need to work with the Romanians so that they can build on their infrastructure and their citizens are able to remain there—this applies to Bulgaria, too—which is what they want to do. We cannot have freedom of movement without movement, which makes this a fundamental issue for the European Union rather than one that can be dealt with by a change in the benefit rules.

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his measured response and his question. Of course he is right to say that making the changes to tighten the benefit rules, seeking to remove people not exercising their treaty rights and then providing a year-long ban applies not only to Romanians and Bulgarians but to all those exercising their free movement rights and coming here from the European Union. What I took from the last part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question was, I think, support for the concept that this Government have set out—that we want to renegotiate the treaty. My party has certainly set that out, and the Prime Minister has set it out. We want the treaty to be renegotiated and, within that, we want to address the issue of free movement. Crucially, other member states across the EU are now working with us, because they also see potential problems arising from the abuse of the free movement right.

Gerald Howarth: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her incredibly robust statement today, which will be warmly welcomed by the British people, and may I join her in condemning the nauseating hypocrisy of Labour Members, who allowed 2.2 million to come into this country as a deliberate act of policy? We saw on the television young doctors in Bulgaria wishing to come to this country because they could earn in two days here what they earn in a month in Bulgaria. Is not their membership of the EU completely contradicted if all the talent leaves Bulgaria and comes to the UK and other advanced European countries? Even at this late stage, I invite my right hon. Friend to contemplate extending the transitional arrangements so that we have another two or three years to prepare for this.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important and serious point about people moving to the UK who would be of benefit to their own countries if they remained in them. It is important to look at the issue he raises about the disparity of wages and salaries that can be earned, particularly when looking at renegotiation, free movement and transitional controls. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that one aspect that we are currently considering is whether a more flexible approach on transitional controls, reflecting potential disparities and extending transitional controls while certain disparities remained, would be more beneficial than the blunt instrument we have now.

Gisela Stuart: As a foreign national who came to this country, I find some of the tone of the right hon. Lady’s response to be slightly distasteful. Some of what she wants to put in place is right and proper, but she did not answer the shadow Home Secretary’s question about why those things were not put in place when we called for them eight months ago. Does she anticipate that all the provisions she mentions will be in place by 1 January?

Theresa May: I have made it clear on many occasions that I think immigration has been good for the United Kingdom overall. The problem we faced was uncontrolled immigration under the previous Labour Government, whom the hon. Lady supported. We therefore needed to ensure that we brought some control into our immigration system. Most members of the public think that it is only fair when they are hard working and contributing to the NHS, for example, that other people coming here should be required to contribute as well, while those who come here legitimately think it only fair that those who are here illegitimately and illegally should be removed from this country. Some of the measures—the tightening of the habitual residency test, for example—have been renegotiated in recent months. These policies are being looked at and they will be in place by 1 January; others will be put in place as soon after 1 January as is possible.

Charles Walker: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, but I ask her to find her inner lion or tiger and extend transitional controls until 2019. She should take the hit and not pay the EU fine.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) raised, and I suspect that other hon. Friends would like to raise the same point. I think it right for this Government to look at everything we can do to ensure that we can maintain the control of migration to which we have been committed to introducing in the UK. The current legal position is clear, and I have set it out, but it is right to look at every possibility to ensure that we deal with the situation. I have set out in my response to the urgent question the moves that we are making.

Nigel Dodds: Given the abject failure, as the right hon. Lady describes it, of the European Commission adequately to respond to a joint initiative that included the German Government and others, would it not be a good idea to press the matter further, to extend the transitional provisions of the
	2005 treaty until such time as we can have a referendum and see what decision the British people have made, and to maintain the status quo in the meantime?

Theresa May: As I noted, a number of hon. Members have raised this issue, so I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being the third to do so. I have just responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on that very matter. On the point about the European Commission, I agree that it has so far failed to respond. It has, however, moved in that it has accepted that the concept of free movement can be abused and that some abuse of it does take place. This is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and I are working to build within the EU, a coalition of member states—beyond those I have already mentioned—that remain concerned about this issue, wish to see something done about it and can bring greater pressure on the Commission.

Julian Huppert: It is clearly right to clamp down on abuse, but will the Home Secretary confirm that the vast majority of EU migrants here do not claim benefits and instead contribute substantially to our country and our economy—to the tune of £25 billion, according to one study from University college London?

Theresa May: The problem is that the last Labour Government made no attempt to collect any information, so nobody knows the number of people claiming benefits when coming into this country in 2004. This Government are now starting to collect that information so that we can build up a better picture at the same time as we are tightening up access to those benefits. We are not able to say what the picture was previously because the last Government failed to collect the figures.

Clive Betts: I am sure that the Home Secretary will realise that my constituents are concerned not just about benefits. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) has drawn attention to the challenges posed by the large influx of Roma-Slovak migrants into our constituencies. Does she accept that that poses major challenges to community cohesion and puts significant pressures on housing overcrowding and health and school services in our constituencies? Does she agree that the Government need to develop a strategy to work with councils such as Sheffield to meet those challenges to the benefit of all concerned?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that I know concerns a number of communities around the country; local authorities are seeking to address it. There are a number of ways in which the Government have worked on these issues—in respect of certain groups in London, for example—including by working with the Romanian police, who have been over here to support us on this particular question. We need to ensure that we can maintain community cohesion so that we do not see a rise in the concerns to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The Government will strengthen their ability to ensure that those who are removed for not exercising their treaty rights are not able to return for a year.

Michael Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend note Lord Mandelson’s comment that the last Labour Government sent out “search parties” to encourage mass immigration? Moreover, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) has said not only that the Labour Government’s policy was a “spectacular mistake”, but that it left them—and should have left them—with “red faces”. In the light of those admissions from certain leading Labour figures, will my right hon. Friend ensure that she continues to repair the damage done to this country by the negligence of the last Government?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right, and I assure him that, working with colleagues such as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, I will do all that I can to repair the damage left by the last Government. Given that the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), Lord Mandelson—as my hon. Friend pointed out—and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) have all been reflecting on the mistakes made by the Labour Government in relation to immigration, I think that it would have been far preferable for the shadow Secretary of State to come to the House and apologise today.

Michael Weir: The Home Secretary has announced what appear to be substantial proposed changes to freedom of movement, but freedom of movement is a two-way street. It is estimated that 2.2 million United Kingdom citizens are living or working in other parts of the European Union. What assessment has the Home Secretary made of the impact on those citizens of reciprocal changes that may be made by EU nations?

Theresa May: It is true that a number of people from the United Kingdom have chosen to exercise free movement rights and move to other parts of Europe. The figure that I have seen is slightly lower than the one given by the hon. Gentleman, but that does not affect the principle, or the fact that people have exercised those rights. What I think this country should do, in conjunction with other EU member states—and we are working with other member states—is decide what makes sense, and what is fair to our citizens. We must have a system that ensures that those who exercise free movement rights exercise them properly, and that we are able to reduce the pull factors that encourage people to come here and, potentially, not exercise those rights properly.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. Friend say to our colleagues in the European Union that, given that the last Labour Government let in 2.2 million migrants, Britain has taken more than its fair share of migrants throughout Europe, and it is high time that this Parliament regained sovereignty over our immigration policy?

Theresa May: In many respects, we have rather more control over our borders than a number of other European Union member states. We are not in Schengen, for example, and we intend to remain outside it and retain our ability to exercise border controls. I think that the measures I have announced today demonstrate that we are increasingly sending the European Commission the message that we think it important for us to be able to
	make decisions about such matters as the habitual residency test on the basis of what is right for people living here in the United Kingdom.

Derek Twigg: Let me say first that I think we should consider what changes could be made in relation to how free the movement of labour should be in the European Union. My constituents raise that issue with me regularly. May I also ask the Home Secretary what estimate her Department has made of the impact that the changes will have on the number of EU citizens coming to, and staying in, this country, and on what date the benefit changes will take effect?

Theresa May: The Government have produced no estimate, and independent commentators have expressed the view that that is a sensible approach. Because of the number of variables, it would be very difficult to make such an estimate other than within a very large range.
	Some of the measures that I have announced—including the ability to ensure that people who are removed because they are not exercising their treaty rights do not return for a year—will take effect on 1 January, while others will be introduced as early as possible in the new year.

Philip Hollobone: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, but I do not think that either the coalition Government or the Opposition are listening carefully enough to what people are saying. My constituents take the view that this country is full, and that we should not open our borders to Romania and Bulgaria. Yes, if we do not open our borders to them the country will be taken to court, but we will have sent a signal of firm intent about our renegotiation of the EU treaties—and hopefully, by the time the case comes to court the referendum will have taken place, and we will have left this wretched organisation altogether.

Theresa May: I note my hon. Friend’s robust remarks, which are no less than I would have expected from him on this issue. I understand people’s concern about it—and, indeed, about immigration generally—but I think that their concern is largely a response to what they saw happening under the last Government. We are taking a number of steps to deal with that, not just in terms of what will happen after the end of the transitional controls but in the Immigration Bill, which is currently going through Parliament. It is this Government who are introducing changes that I believe are absolutely fair to hard-working people in this country.

Ian Davidson: Surely the fact that new Labour got it spectacularly wrong on European immigration—as some of us argued at the time—does not entitle the Government to make the same mistake. Am I not right in thinking that by the end of the first week in January, every citizen of Romania, every citizen of Bulgaria, and everyone else who has managed to get Romanian and Bulgarian passports will be able to enter the United Kingdom without hindrance?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman said that mistakes had been made by the last Government. He also referred to new Labour; I am not sure whether that is something different from the Labour party that he now represents.
	He claimed that this Government were not learning from those mistakes, but we have indeed learnt from them. That is why we have been clear about transitional controls, and why we want to renegotiate the treaty and ensure that free movement is part of that renegotiation.

Simon Hughes: As one who strongly supports our continued membership of the European Union but was very critical of Labour’s action in doing away with the transitional arrangements for the eastern European countries, and as one who also strongly supports our not joining the Schengen agreement, I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement because it deals with some of the deep concerns expressed by our constituents. However, will she ensure that over the next few weeks the coalition Government disseminate very clearly, for the benefit of the public and local councils, information about exactly what the rules are in relation to people from other countries? There are people outside the House—and, sometimes, people in the House—who misrepresent the picture in a way that generates fear of immigrants and fear of immigration, and does no good to our community cohesion.

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend has made an extremely important point. We will do all that we can to ensure that people are aware of the rules that will operate—including, obviously, those who will put the rules into practice—so that everyone recognises the actions that the coalition Government are taking. The right hon. Gentleman referred specifically to councils. In my response to the urgent question, I mentioned the new guidance that will be issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government concerning the residency in the community test for access to social housing. We will ensure that those who need to know what action we are taking are given a full picture of what the Government are doing to address an issue that is of concern to them.

Susan Elan Jones: Can the Home Secretary tell us whether there will be larger fines for breaches of the national minimum wage legislation, and can she confirm that those arrangements will be in place by 1 January next year?

Theresa May: We will increase the maximum fine for breaches of the national minimum wage regulations, which will require parliamentary legislation.

Robert Halfon: My Harlow residents will welcome the measures announced by my right hon. Friend because they are entirely fair, but will not many hard-working immigrants who do not claim handouts from the British taxpayer welcome them as well, because they create a level playing field?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. What we are doing is fair to the hard-working people who have come to the UK legally, played by the rules and done the right thing. It is every bit as frustrating for them to see people coming here and abusing and playing the system. That is another reason why it is absolutely right for us to take this action.

Sheila Gilmore: None of us believes everything we read in the newspapers, but there have been reports of British recruitment agencies working
	in Romania and Bulgaria actively to recruit people to come here in January. What steps are the Home Secretary and other members of her Government taking to deal with that?

Theresa May: I recognise the issue that the hon. Lady has raised. If recruitment agencies were attempting to recruit only from certain countries, such as Romania and Bulgaria, that would be discriminatory and against the law. The Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), is taking that matter up with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is the relevant enforcement body.

Peter Bone: The only way for the Home Secretary to deal with the problem of thousands of people coming to this country from Romania and Bulgaria is to extend the transitional arrangements, and it would be perfectly legal for her to do so. My private Member’s Bill, which has its Second Reading this Friday, would do exactly that, and by the end of a five-year extension, the referendum would have taken place. I urge my right hon. Friend to be here on Friday if she can, and to support my Bill.

Theresa May: I should make it clear to my hon. Friend that when he sees me here on Friday, it might have something to do with another private Members’ Bill that is being debated on that day. It is an important Bill that will put in place the legislation on the EU referendum, which we are clear that we should have.

Nick Smith: Which of the benefit changes that have been identified today will not be ready on 1 January?

Theresa May: I have indicated that the habitual residency test will be available from 1 January, and that the measures for those people who will be removed—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked which measures would not be ready. He can work it out for himself, because I have told him which one will be in place on 1 January.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am sorry to have to ask the same question for about the sixth time. It is open to the Government to abrogate their treaty obligations, and it is open to the House to legislate. The free movement of people is no longer working in the interests of this nation, so why do Her Majesty’s Government lack the political will to change the law?

Theresa May: I am tempted to say that I suspect my hon. Friend was not sorry to have to ask that question for a sixth time. I have answered it in relation to an earlier question. The Government are taking steps to ensure that we can do what we believe to be necessary to address the issue of the removal of transitional controls on people coming from Romania and Bulgaria. I hope that my hon. Friend understands the intentions and good faith behind what the Government have done across the immigration system over the past three and a half years. We have explored every possible avenue to do everything we can to repair the damage, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), that was done by the last Labour Government’s policies.

Ian Austin: I welcome the restrictions, because I have long felt that rules designed for an EU made up of a small number of advanced economies cannot really work for a much bigger organisation. Given the Home Secretary’s admission that the new rules on the national minimum wage will not be in force on 1 January, however, why will she not introduce legislation now to make the necessary changes more quickly?

Theresa May: We will bring forward the various legislative requirements as and when the time to do so is appropriate. We are looking across the board in dealing with these issues. Some measures will be in place, and some regulatory changes will take place before the end of this term and before the Christmas recess. The Government are taking action.

Andrew Turner: My constituents are getting thoroughly fed up with being told what to do by EU officials on the radio this morning and elsewhere. Can the Home Secretary decide what will happen in the UK in future without interference from the EU?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend’s constituents might be interested to hear that we will find ourselves in considerable disagreement with the European Union over a number of the measures that we are taking. We are prepared to take those measures, however, because we believe that they are right for this country.

John Denham: As I think the Home Secretary has acknowledged, the majority of people who come here will not get on a coach or a plane on spec. They will be recruited by agencies that have offered them jobs with British employers, probably with an additional offer of accommodation. With just a month or so to go, will she tell us what she has done to identify the agencies that are recruiting in that way and the employers that are offering those jobs? Will she also make it perfectly clear that the slightest breach of regulations on the minimum wage, health and safety, accommodation, benefits or anything else will be met with the full force of the law by the Government from the very first stage? Simply referring such cases to the Equality and Human Rights Commission will not be good enough.

Theresa May: First, I did not acknowledge that the majority of people would be recruited in that way. I accepted that there had been stories about recruitment agencies undertaking that sort of operation, and I indicated clearly that the relevant enforcement body was the EHRC. The Government are taking this issue up with the EHRC.

Nigel Mills: If the accession treaty had allowed the restrictions to continue beyond the end of this year, would it have been the Government’s policy to seek such an extension? If so, would the Home Secretary consider accepting the new clause that I have tabled to the Immigration Bill, which would achieve precisely that?

Theresa May: We believe that it is right to look at the way in which transitional controls operate because there should be more flexibility for member states in the exercise of those controls. At the moment, we have only the rather blunt instrument of an extension of a particular
	number of years. That is why it is important that free movement should form part of the renegotiation process. The Government should look at all options in seeking to deal with this issue.

Charlie Elphicke: My constituents in Dover will welcome the robust action that the Home Secretary is taking to crack down on welfare tourism, but will she note that some people have been going round my constituency and elsewhere in east Kent saying that 29 million people will turn up when the restrictions are lifted? What does she make of those claims?

Theresa May: It behoves all of us to speak on this important issue in a measured and sensible way. This is a matter of grave concern, and the people who are going round making exaggerated claims of that nature do a disservice to all of us, especially those of us in the Government who are taking measures that will have an impact on the people coming here and measures to reduce the pull factors. We are also taking wider measures in the Immigration Bill to ensure that people who come here cannot use our public services without contributing to them.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I welcome the statement. I happily voted for the Immigration Bill, and the Opposition would have more credibility on this issue had they done so as well. Has the Home Secretary sought and received any guidance from her Department on extending the transitional arrangements, on how long the infraction procedure would take and on the likelihood and amount of any fines?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us of the Opposition’s failure to support the provisions in
	the Immigration Bill. Had they given that support, the shadow Secretary of State’s contribution today might have had a little more credibility. Given my hon. Friend’s background, he will know the legal position on the accession treaty. As I have said, the Government are taking every step they can and looking at all the issues in dealing with this matter.

Nick de Bois: I welcome the tone and content of the Home Secretary’s statement, which are in stark contrast to this morning’s reference by EU Commissioner Andor to “hysteria” in Britain’s reaction to the lifting of the transitional controls. Does that reference not underline how remote the EU institutions are from the British public and the British Government’s needs? Does it not also explain why so many of us in this House want the Government to seize back the transitional controls?

Theresa May: I fully appreciate the point that my hon. Friend is making and I fully appreciate that when statements such as the one he mentions are made people feel strongly about the Commission’s attitude on this matter. As I indicated earlier, I think the point for the Commission is very simple: if it thinks this is simply an issue about the position being taken by the United Kingdom, it is wrong. Other member states, such as Germany, the Netherlands and Austria, are also concerned about this issue of free movement and the problems that now arise with free movement. The European Commission is beginning to find that it is on the wrong side of the argument. It makes statements such as that one, but we will continue to impress on it that this issue is important for member states across the European Union—although of course this Government’s main concern is for people here in the UK.

Post Office

Jo Swinson: Today I am pleased to announce that the Government are committing a further £640 million in funding to the post office network for the three years 2015-16 to 2017-18. That enables the Post Office to complete its network transformation programme, and to protect and invest in those branches which provide vital services to their communities but are not commercially viable in their own right. In 2010 the Government committed £1.34 billion to maintain a national post office network, modernise branches and safeguard the future of post offices that play a vital role in urban deprived and rural areas. Since then, the post office network has been at its most stable for more than 20 years, which is in stark contrast to the 7,000 closures that took place under the previous Government.
	This Government remain fully committed to maintaining a network of at least 11,500 post offices, fully compliant with our access criteria and with a sustainable long-term future. To achieve that, the post office network must meet the changing needs of customers through longer opening hours and more modern premises which are easier and faster to use. Already more than 1,400 communities have benefited from Government investment into their post offices, with a total of 34,000 extra opening hours per week across the network. A further 830 post offices are also signed up to change to the new main or local operating models. In total, that represents nearly one in five of our post offices, and most hon. Members have one or more modernised branch in their constituencies. More than 200 hon. Members, including me, have personally opened a new-look post office in their area.
	The Post Office is drawing on the experience from the first year of the network transformation programme to introduce changes that will see the programme completed by 2018. These changes, developed by the Post Office in conjunction with the National Federation of SubPostmasters, were endorsed yesterday by sub-postmasters at a special conference. We will deliver the benefits of longer opening hours and more modern premises to customers at a swifter pace, while making more investment available and providing greater clarity and certainty for sub-postmasters.
	The Government do not underestimate the challenges facing the network, the Post Office centrally and, in particular, individual sub-postmasters. In recent years, the retail environment on the high street, and more widely, has been far from easy for sub-postmasters. This new investment recognises that reality. The network needs to build on its core strengths of unparalleled national reach, and the trust and high regard in which it is rightly held by customers. It must focus on meeting customers’ needs and expectations in a rapidly changing, highly competitive retail market. Ease of access, longer opening hours, shorter queues and modern premises are key to winning new clients and attracting and retaining customers. With more than 1,400 branches modernised to date, independent research is showing customer satisfaction levels with the new models averaging more than 95%. Satisfaction levels among sub-postmasters operating the new models are similarly impressive, at about 80%.
	In many locations, new operating models are enabling post offices to be re-established after a significant break in service. At Balnamore in north Antrim, a new local branch opened in August, re-establishing post office services some five years after the closure of the previous branch. The new branch opens seven days a week, for a total of 92 hours. At Oxenhope in west Yorkshire, which had had no post office since June 2011, a new local branch opened in the Co-op, and it now offers post office services from 7 am to 10 pm, seven days a week.
	However, this is not just about new post office operating models. The post office network is incredibly diverse, and it is just as important to customers in remote rural areas that their post office stays open as it is for busy town centre branches to be open for longer. There are about 3,000 post offices for which the new main or local models are not suitable. Those branches predominantly serve small, often remote, communities and they may be the last shop in the village. They are hugely valuable to their communities. The updated network transformation programme provides, for the first time in Post Office history, a £20 million investment fund allocated specifically to that part of the network. The fund will enable the improvement and modernisation of those branches to strengthen their long-term sustainability.
	The investments being made by the Post Office are already creating a strong platform from which it can compete for new work from government and the private sector. Some customers and sub-postmasters have expressed understandable concerns about continued access to Post Office card accounts beyond 2015, when the current contract is due to expire. The Department for Work and Pensions and Post Office are in discussions about a long-term successor to the Post Office card account, and I can confirm today that all options under consideration conclude that access to pensions and benefits will continue beyond March 2015 across the whole post office network of at least 11,500 branches.
	The Post Office is also doing much more for government. Over the past two years, the Post Office has won every single government contract it has bid for. It is winning this work competitively, and winning it because it is such a strong partner for government. There is even more that the Post Office can do for government in the future. For example, under the existing contract withthe passport office, the Post Office is discussing the introduction ofnewin-branch services which would allow the majority of customers to apply for their passports digitally, without the need for any supporting paper forms. The intention is to introduce those servicesfrom the middle of 2014. The Department of Energy and Climate Change recently announced that it will work with the Post Office to signpost elderly and vulnerable people to the 500 volunteers being trained by the big energy saving network to help people to find ways to cut their bills.
	Such innovations demonstrate a forward-thinking Post Office, which is introducing new services, growing new revenue streams and bringing new customers into post office branches. With the additional funding in place, we have the basis for building a thriving and sustainable Post Office. I believe that in the next few years we will see the Post Office continuing to grow its business, and its network flourish and potentially expand in due course.
	Creating a financially sustainable network will be key to delivering a Post Office that can be mutualised.
	Significant progress has been made by the Post Office and its stakeholders already, and that will be boosted by the Government’s funding commitments today. The Post Office will shortly publish further details of the steps it is taking to build a mutual future.
	The £640 million investment I am announcing funds the completion of a transformation programme. It establishes the platform for a vibrant, commercially sustainable post office network with a mutual future. I commend this statement to the House.

Ian Murray: I thank the Minister for her statement and for advance sight of it. Let me start by paying tribute to our sub-postmasters up and down the country. They are integral to all our local communities across our constituencies, and are indeed the social fabric of this country. However, the job of a sub-postmaster has become much more difficult in recent years. Research from the National Federation of SubPostmasters shows that incomes have fallen and many sub-postmasters work very hard, over very long hours, for very little return. That situation has not been assisted by the Government, who in 2010 announced plans to use post offices as the “front office for government”. The Government have failed to deliver on their pledge. No new major government services have been awarded to post offices since May 2010. The Minister says that the Post Office has won all that it has bid for, but these were contracts that it already had, and, according to the National Federation of SubPostmasters, many services do not make the Post Office any money at all.
	The situation resulted in the NFSP removing its support for the Postal Services Act 2011, because the Government promised £466 million of government work but the Post Office is currently gaining only £130 million from government business—that is 7% less than last year. That failure has resulted in the post office network being under more pressure than ever before. In addition to that is the abject failure of the network transformation programme to do what the Government planned. Consumer Futures wrote to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee last month saying that of the 6,000 branches that were predicted by the Government to convert to the new model, only 1,100 have done so. That shows that the programme is not working, which is why a degree of compulsion has been introduced, with additional funding to deliver it.
	The Minister dresses up this statement as good news, but today’s announcement of an additional £200 million on top of the £440 million already trailed beyond 2015 means that we can firmly say that this is a vote of no confidence in what the Government are doing to the post office network. In effect, the Government are increasing the compensation for people to leave and providing more money to convert. Of that, £23 million alone is for completing a retail survey to determine who should be converted or removed from the network on a compulsory basis. If the Government had delivered on their front office for government work that they promised back in 2010, the £640 million would not be required. It is a payment for abject failure and for yet another broken Government promise.
	The National Federation of SubPostmasters voted to approve the package yesterday, because most operators
	feel that the traditional post office model under this Government is not working. Sub-postmasters know that they face a degree of compulsion, but they will take the package as they are struggling on their incomes. The fact that members of the National Federation of SubPostmasters voted so wholeheartedly to support this package shows that they want out. It is the epitome of taking the money and running. Crucially, the money will be used to subsidise exit from the network rather than to go into the network to make it sustainable in the long term.
	I welcome the last shop in the village and community post office funding and support the fact that there will be no compulsion in that area. The £20 million will assist in modernisation and help these critical community assets. Rural communities in particular need their post office services to survive.
	By the end of the process, the Government will have spent £2 billion on network transformation, and there is a concern that we still do not have a model that is sufficiently attractive to current or future operators. If the model were attractive, it would not require additional funding, as the current programme would not be failing. Given that the National Federation of SubPostmasters has called the privatisation of Royal Mail a “reckless gamble” for the post office network, is it not the case that although the Minister is throwing as many sub-postmasters as she can into lifeboats, those lifeboats could already be sinking as retailers will not take on the local model? The Government are content not just with selling off the Royal Mail for a song but with hastening the demise of yet another cherished national institution.
	In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that
	“we have committed that no post office will close in this Parliament.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 296.]
	If that is the case, post offices in which owners are paid to leave with no alternative in place are closing by stealth, showing that the Prime Minister’s claim is indeed hollow and shallow.
	Let me ask the Minister a series of questions. First, will the current criteria be used for compulsion, or will it be updated? Secondly, will the new announcement require new state aid applications to the European Union? Thirdly, if a sub-postmaster stays and converts to a new model, they will have their salary subsidised until 2015, but what happens beyond that? Despite the fact that more than 1,000 sub-postmasters have said that they wish to leave the network voluntarily, only 94 retailers have been found to replace them in the past two years. What happens to the post office if other retailers are not prepared to take it on after a postmaster leaves the network on a compulsory basis?
	As shareholders get a significant financial benefit from a privatised Royal Mail, the taxpayer picks up a new £650 million plan B for post office network transformation. It is clear that the Government have created chaos in our postal services, and that the era of Postman Pat and Mrs Goggins is well and truly over.

Jo Swinson: I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for his contribution. I agreed with some parts of it. Of course we all join him in paying
	tribute to the sub-postmasters who do such a fantastic job in all our constituencies up and down the country. I also agree that it has been a very difficult environment for sub-postmasters. However, small businesses and retailers have also found the past few years difficult. We could go over the argument that takes place in this House on a regular basis about where blame for that lies, but suffice it to say that we have seen a challenging set of economic times, and that has had an impact on the post offices, as it has on other businesses in the high street. However, the Post Office is a key partner of the front office for government, and it has won all the contracts that have come forward. Potential streams of income are coming down the track in the form of assisted digital services and identity verification. A whole range of different models are being explored, including those with local government. Indeed, a number of contracts have been won with various local government services, and there is probably more that can be done there, too. However, it is about not only the front office for government or mail, but having a diverse range of income streams for the post office. Financial services is one on which we have focused. For example, the roll out of the current account, which was piloted earlier this year in East Anglia, will be welcomed by many sub-postmasters, as it will provide regular transactions and regular footfall into post offices to give them the customer input they need to run thriving businesses.
	I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s comments on network transformation. We are talking about a process in which more than 2,000 post offices are already signed up to convert to network transformation. I am sure that Members will report that customers have been positive about it, and the customer satisfaction statistics speak for themselves. Indeed, retailers in some of the new models, with the brighter and more modern environments, have experienced a 10% uplift in sales. This is about building a sustainable future. The hon. Gentleman tries to talk down the network transformation, but we should be talking it up.
	I make no apologies for providing welcome funding to sub-postmasters for participating in important surveys, which will also help to gather valuable management data across the network. We are dealing with a diverse and dispersed network of nearly 12,000 branches across the country. It is important to have that management data for the Post Office to work out how best to plan the network for the future. Ensuring that sub-postmasters are properly remunerated for undertaking those surveys is particularly helpful.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a few questions about whether new state aid applications will be required. The answer is yes, but as the package runs from 2015, there is plenty of time to ensure that we get through that necessary process. On the payments that sub-postmasters will receive, he is right that there will be an enhanced package up until 2015 because we recognise that in making a change and a transition, new customer bases and income streams will have to be built up. It is important that sub-postmasters are helped and encouraged to do so.
	The hon. Gentleman was wrong to say that we were subsidising the exit of sub-postmasters and leaving communities stranded without post offices. That would be taking a leaf out of the previous Government’s book. Under this plan and under this Government, that
	cannot happen. There cannot be a subsidised exit if there is not already alternative provision in that community. Importantly, communities have to be happy with the changes that are being made, and provision has to continue. In those circumstances, if some sub-postmasters want to leave the network and retire or perhaps take on a new challenge, then we will compensate them for doing so, as long as the service continues. That is the key difference between what the hon. Gentleman’s party did in government and what this coalition Government are doing. Labour closed 7,000 post offices. That was its answer to these particular challenges. We are creating a sustainable future for the post office network at a stable level. That is the difference between what they would have done and what we are doing.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. A great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. This is of course an important matter that must be treated thoroughly. I remind the House that there is an Opposition day debate to follow, which is heavily subscribed, and the interest in which I am keen to accommodate. As a consequence, there is a premium on brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike. The first to exhibit that will be Mr Stewart Jackson.

Stewart Jackson: My constituency suffered under Labour’s Orwellian urban reinvention programme. We also remember the unedifying sight of Labour voting against motions condemning post office closures before scurrying to their constituencies to address public meetings about the same thing. Will my hon. Friend carefully make the point that the voluntary sector and local authorities have an important part to play in advice and information services and maintaining the viability of rural and urban post offices?

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are many examples across the country of local government and voluntary services working in strong partnership with the Post Office and that can be of great mutual benefit.

Adrian Bailey: I broadly welcome the Minister’s announcement, which reflects the difficulties successive Governments have had in sustaining the sort of post office network we all want. The future of the network will depend, however, on the perception of sub-postmasters and would-be sub-postmasters of the long-term viability of the model. Will the Minister explain what that perception is following Royal Mail’s arrangement with Post Office Ltd?

Jo Swinson: I welcome that contribution and those words of welcome from the Chair of the Select Committee. He is right that this Government and previous Governments have faced the challenge of how a much-loved institution reforms and modernises for a very different retail environment from that of some decades ago. That is not necessarily always an easy process. He asks about the perception of the future viability of the network. The range of different services for which the Post Office can bid—not just Government services but the huge opportunities in the parcels market and financial services—are very significant. We must bear in mind the 10-year
	intra-business agreement between Royal Mail and the Post Office. The chief executive of the Royal Mail, Moya Greene, has said that it would be unthinkable for there not to be that commercial relationship between the two companies, so I hope that hon. Members will also respect that and not indulge in the scaremongering that has gone on in some corners about the future of the Post Office following Royal Mail privatisation.

Harriett Baldwin: Mr Speaker, have you ever heard a more grudging contribution from the Labour party, after the closure of 7,346 post offices? I thank the Minister on behalf of my constituents in West Worcestershire. Will any of the money that she has announced today help the Post Office to modernise its computer system for my sub-postmasters and, to reflect rural concerns, update the algorithm that allows post offices to hold cash ?

Jo Swinson: I am happy to look in more detail at some of the specific technological issues that the hon. Lady raises. The money we are announcing today is for a continuation of the network subsidy for the three years and to invest in the future network transformation programme. Of course, we must ensure that the central IT systems, managing a network of nearly 12,000 retail outlets, are also fit for the 21st century. I will happily get back to her with further details.

Katy Clark: Will the Minister explain why, despite what she says, Government work undertaken by post offices has gone down by more than 7% over the past year? Surely she should be doing more to get new work for the Post Office.

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady is right that Government work is important for the Post Office. As the Minister responsible for the Post Office, I am engaged in promoting and encouraging that. Obviously, the Post Office must win work on its merits, and the environment is competitive. Whether we are talking about the mail market, the retail market or bidding for Government work, a range of competitors would be more than happy to take some of the contracts. It is a testament to the strength of the Post Office that, despite that strong competition, it has continued to win contract after contract, but I am in no doubt that bidding for that work on a more competitive basis creates significant pressures, particularly for some sub-postmasters.

John Leech: I welcome the Government’s commitment to protecting and potentially expanding the post office network. As my hon. Friend is aware, I have been campaigning for the reopening of my post office in Ladybarn, which was shamefully closed by the previous Government. Will the Minister assure me that when decisions are made on any new post offices, consideration will be given to reopening old post offices that were closed and that would not impact on the viability of other offices in an area?

Jo Swinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and pay tribute to him for his assiduous campaigning on behalf of his post offices, and particularly for the community of Ladybarn, which he has raised with me
	on a number of occasions. In my statement, I gave some examples of new post offices that have opened and been able to plug some of the gaps left in communities under the previous closure programmes and when sub-postmasters retired. If we consider any new models or new offices, the obvious places to see whether such provision could be inserted would be such locations.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome the Minister’s statement and associate myself with the tribute paid by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), to sub-postmasters, who in Northern Ireland provide an essential service and have gone the extra mile in years past when they were targeted by terrorist attacks. That should be put on the record.
	The Minister kindly mentioned Balnamore in my North Antrim constituency, just outside Ballymoney. Given that success story, for which I am very grateful, will the Minister tell us how much of the £640 million will apply to Northern Ireland over the years from 2015 to 2018?

Jo Swinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Just last week I met representatives of the sub-postmasters in Northern Ireland in this House. The points that they made about how post offices had often been seen as a safe haven where people from different communities could come together were incredibly moving. He makes a particularly important point about the service in areas that have seen such difficulties. The subsidy payment will depend on the specifics of which sub-postmasters bid for which money and how that breaks down, but I know that Northern Ireland has a higher than average proportion of rural offices, so I am sure that the community fund for community offices will be of particular interest to sub-postmasters there.

Neil Carmichael: Given that the previous Labour Government closed a third of our post offices—a staggering fact—we should listen to the Opposition with that in mind. Does the Minister agree that it is fantastic news that organisations such as National Express are using the Post Office to promote and sell their tickets? That is exactly what we need to see to promote post offices in our communities.

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The fact that we have a network with such a fantastic reach into communities up and down the country means that it is ideally placed for a range of different commercial contracts and potential partnerships, such as the one that he mentions with National Express.

Richard Burden: At a time when so many of our constituents face crippling debts, I think the Minister might agree that local post offices should be able to play a bigger role in providing alternatives to loan sharks. It has been argued that credit unions could be co-located with local post offices, but all too often that does not stack up financially for the post office or the credit union. What does she feel she can do to bring them together and remove those barriers?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, not just about the suitability of post offices for such ventures but about the need for such projects in
	our communities. As he will be aware, the Government are investing £38 million to support credit unions to modernise and to ensure that they can be accessible to people in communities. There might be ways in which that can be used to create collaboration with the Post Office in communities where that makes sense.

Roger Williams: I congratulate the Minister on her statement. Steven Like, the postmaster in Hay-on-Wye in my constituency, was concerned that the small and very important letter-sorting facility in his premises might be closed to the detriment of the viability of his business. The Minister was able to give him encouraging news, but will she encourage Royal Mail and the Post Office to work together for the benefit of both businesses?

Jo Swinson: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that I will do that. As he says, he raised the issue of Hay-on-Wye with me and, thankfully, there is no threat to that service. He raises the wider point of the important commercial relationship between Royal Mail and the Post Office. They are natural partners that operate together for a mutual benefit, which will, I am sure, continue long into the future.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the Minister for her statement. With particular reference to Northern Ireland, where there have been bank branch closures, will she give assurances that she will have discussions with the major banks and her colleagues in the Treasury to ensure that banking services can be transferred to post offices, particularly in rural areas, to provide accessibility to services and, in so doing, sustain rural post offices?

Jo Swinson: Absolutely. The hon. Lady is right to raise that issue. Of course it is very good news that 95% of the main UK bank accounts are now available through post offices; only Santander is so far holding out. But in the meeting that I had with sub-postmasters from Northern Ireland last week, they did mention that there were some specific Northern Ireland issues around the full range of banking services. I am more than happy to look into those and encourage banks to ensure that they are provided. Of course, there is also the new current account, which has been piloted and will be rolled out across the post office network. The post office should be an obvious place for people to undertake their banking transactions.

Steve Brine: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Just this week, I received news from the Post Office that the Chandler’s Ford post office, in the Fryern Arcade part of my constituency, is to be modernised and moved with some of the funding that she announced today. The additional funding will obviously ensure that post offices remain, but can she assure the people I represent that communities that lost out and were so bitterly disappointed—such as Littleton village in my constituency—will have a chance for a glorious return of their post office services? Will she meet me and other Members interested, to explore how we go about that?

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Many communities up and down the country were devastated by the loss of their post office under the previous closure programmes. Where it makes sense,
	and where there are new models—whether those are the local, main or other models that the Post Office has been trialling—that would make sense in those areas, of course we should look at whether that is appropriate, and I would be happy to receive representations from my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on that issue.

Stephen McCabe: Will the Minister intervene to see whether her rescue package can be used to prevent the closure of Kings Heath Crown post office and the shoehorning of services into a corner of WHSmith that is unable to handle buggies, wheelchairs or mobility scooters—hardly modern, easier premises to use?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman mentions an apparent closure, but of course a post office service will continue, and that is vital to that community. He mentions the Crown office network. It is simply unsustainable to have 370 post offices out of a network of nearly 12,000 that lose £37 million a year, as of the last financial year for which we have figures. We need to take action to get that Crown network to break even, given that these are offices, in city centre and town centre locations, that are busy places and should be able to at least break even, if not provide a profit to go back into the network. That is why we are looking at franchising proposals. We do need to get them right and they are the subject of consultation. I am not sure of the exact timetable of the hon. Gentleman’s particular consultation process, but it is a six-week consultation for any suggested move. Where that is not right for the community, of course we should look again at different locations and ensure that a post office is continuing in all those areas that are up for franchising.

Alan Reid: I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, especially the recognition that the local model is not suitable for small communities, and the £20 million for small community post offices, but may I draw her attention to the fact that the Post Office is threatening to close the Carradale East post office a fortnight on Monday? Can a rescue package be put together to save that post office for that small community?

Jo Swinson: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s campaigning on behalf of his numerous post offices in Argyll and Bute. In a constituency like his, they truly provide a lifeline. I am aware of the case that he has raised and I will happily look further into it. Clearly, there are circumstances where sometimes a sub-postmaster will decide to retire, but we need to ensure that what is put in that post office’s place is appropriate for that local community.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I say how strongly I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the post office network, especially to rural areas? Is she aware that, under the last Labour Government, they closed a massive 12 out of 34 post offices? In contrast, under this Government, a post office at Stratton has been reopened and the post office at Bourton-on-the-Water is now open seven days a week. Would she agree that the best way to maintain the viability of the post office network is to introduce an increasing and innovative range of services?

Jo Swinson: I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to highlight the challenges that his community and others faced under the previous Government. I am delighted to hear the news that the Post Office is delivering for his constituents, and he is right that a diverse and innovative range of services will help to ensure that the Post Office has a sustainable and secure future.

Bill Esterson: The people running a number of post offices in my constituency just cannot make them work. They are not viable, for many reasons. They have a knock-on effect on other retailers, and they will not be able to provide the vital community service to the local community, including the older people who rely on them. What is needed is the kind of Government work that my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) mentioned. That is the essential long-term future for those post offices; otherwise, the measure announced today is just delaying the inevitable, and we will still have a closure programme by another name.

Jo Swinson: We are modernising the post office network because we recognise that it cannot look the same in the future as it did 50 years ago. There have been a range of changes in the way that we live our lives and the way that people access financial services through bank accounts. For example, there is less demand for people to be paid at post offices. Those all have an impact on the services that post offices offer. That is why we need to diversify into a range of new services, and why the new models are often based on co-locating a post office with a thriving retail business, where they can mutually benefit, the post office driving footfall to help the retail business drive sales. In the new models, sales of the other retail businesses have increased. That is how we can build a sustainable future. We cannot set the post office in aspic as it was 50 years ago.

Anne McIntosh: The loss of a rural post office can impact on the cost of living for those living in that area. Would the Minister look closely at the model of the community post office at Stillington as a way forward? Will she also review what will happen to rural post offices at the end of the 10-year operational agreement between Royal Mail and the Post Office, and the possible implications for rural post offices?

Jo Swinson: I will be happy to hear more about the post office at Stillington and how members of the community have been working to sustain it. I hope that the announcement of the funding for community post offices will be of interest to my hon. Friend’s constituents also. She is right to highlight that the mails work through Royal Mail is an important part of what the Post Office does, and we certainly want to ensure that that continues long beyond the inter-business agreement. People should bear in mind the reassurance that the chief executive of Royal Mail has given about that.

Diana Johnson: Can the Minister explain exactly what happens if a sub-postmaster wants to take the compensation and cease to operate a post office and a new operator cannot be found?

Jo Swinson: We shall not compensate people to leave the post office network and leave communities without post offices because that would not be in keeping with what we want to provide for communities; so the compensation for sub-postmasters who want to leave is dependent on a new operator being found in that area. Obviously, at any stage sub-postmasters can decide if they want to retire or to leave the network, but if we going to pay them and compensate them to do so, we want to ensure that the community still has a post office service that it can access.

Robert Smith: In West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine there are many small local communities where the community model will be the excellent solution to their need to sustain the last access to public services in the community. Can the Minister confirm that the extension of the card account, and the funding model that has been put in today, will be used to grow other services for the Post Office, particularly financial services?

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the vital role of the community post office, particularly where that is literally the last shop in the village. That is where the investment in those branches that did not qualify under the previous programme but will now, will help to ensure that they too can provide a modern service and make available the widest range of financial services in a community where there may not be other banking facilities. In such areas, where people may depend significantly on deliveries and online shopping because of the access it gives to large retail areas and conurbations, the parcels market is increasingly important as part of the business model of post offices.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: A designated post office recently closed in a village in my constituency. It has been replaced by post office facilities in a shop. Although local people are pleased that a service is continuing, they are worried about the lack of privacy in the new location. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that old and vulnerable people are not put at risk by moves of that nature?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady makes a genuine point, and it is important, depending on what the transaction is, that appropriate privacy can be given. At the same time, the old model of the post office with a sort of fortress that had to be built in, seemed outdated to many people, putting a barrier between the customer service assistant and the customer. It also added a huge amount of cost to the way in which the network was run. It is important that retailers and sub-postmasters providing services can take into account the needs of all their customers, and if the hon. Lady has concerns about what is happening in a particular post office I am certainly happy to look at that.

Philip Hollobone: May I welcome this massive new investment in sub-post offices? Many sub-post offices that were much loved and well used in my Kettering constituency were closed under the Labour Government. I congratulate the coalition Government on lifting the long, deep, dark shadow of closure that has hung over local sub-post offices for so long.

Jo Swinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The figures speak for themselves. If we look at the number of post offices that have been in place over the past decade or so, the network is at its most stable for many, many years, and the Government are absolutely committed to maintaining that. Although the post office network must change, the answer is not to cull it but to support it.

Lisa Nandy: The Minister has repeatedly said that the post office network is at its most sustainable for years, but that is not a picture that many people in Wigan and across the country—or I—would recognise. Government business to the post office network has fallen by 7% over the past year, and the National Federation of SubPostmasters says that we need
	“a determined and co-ordinated effort across Government to provide a wide range of services through the post office network”.
	Where is it?

Jo Swinson: The numbers in the post office network are at their most stable for decades and, as I say, the facts speak for themselves on that point. On the issue of Government services, that is an important part of post office income, but it is not the only part, because that is not the way to achieve a secure future for post offices. They need a diverse range of income streams, including mails and financial services.
	As for where the Government work is, we have heard today that the post office card account, or its successor, will continue through the post office network, which is welcome. Last year, the Post Office competed for the framework contract for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and won, and that framework contract will allow further contracts to be put through, as indeed was the case with the UK Passport Service work earlier this year.
	I am not for a second trying to suggest that things are easy for sub-postmasters. Things are not easy, and they have not been easy, in these difficult economic times. We recognise that, which is why we have enhanced the packages available to make them more attractive and make sure that sub-postmasters have more opportunity either to make the choice if they wish to leave the network or enable them to continue and invest in their business, get more customers through the door and build a thriving retail business.

John Pugh: In welcoming the statement, may I draw the Minister’s attention to the Crown post office network, and the fact that those post offices selected for closure are not necessarily, as is the case with mine in Southport, making the most losses? Will she tell the House what will happen if WH Smith, like other high street firms, goes out of business?

Jo Swinson: The selection from the Crown network is based on a range of criteria but, in every single case in which we are seeking to franchise, we are talking about Crown post offices that have made losses. I understand that in Southport, every £1 of income cost £1.75. People will accept that that is not sustainable. That said, it is important that we make sure that those services continue. I encourage my hon. Friend to ensure that he is involved in the consultation on the right location for continuing that post office service, to make sure that his constituents still have access to the full range of post office services.

Mark Lazarowicz: Royal Mail shares are selling today at about 70% above the price at which they were sold by the Government when the business was privatised. Does the Minister at least admit, if she is as determined on privatisation as she seems to be that, that had the Government not undervalued Royal Mail shares, she might have an extra £2 billion, which could be used to support the Post Office, now and in future years.

Jo Swinson: First, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that he is talking about two entirely separate companies, because Royal Mail is separate from the Post Office. The privatisation of Royal Mail has, I understand, been discussed at length in the House and, indeed, this morning in the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, which took evidence from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon). I would gently say that making a judgment some short weeks after flotation is perhaps not the best way of judging a company’s long-term share price.

Russell Brown: As chair of the all-party group on post offices, may I tell the Minister that I warmly welcome the additional investment that she has announced? However, I think that there is an element of denial about what is going on out there. Perhaps she can share with the House how many post offices have been closed temporarily and how many are under temporary management? How much of the £1.34 billion allocation has been spent on modernisation, and how much has been spent to provide an enhanced package for people to leave? Can she tell the House the value of the 10 contracts that have been won, and how many of them were new contracts, not contracts up for renewal?

Jo Swinson: I shall endeavour to give a full answer to all those points but, if the House will forgive me, I shall write with all the details on those questions. As for temporary closures, I think it is about 400, but I can obtain the most up-to-date figures. As the hon. Gentleman can imagine, the figure fluctuates. I accept that it is important that we make sure that Government work is available as part of a mix of services and income streams that the Post Office can access. I absolutely accept that things are not easy, and I have said that a number of times when responding to questions this afternoon. I would not wish to suggest that it is an easy life being a sub-postmaster, because it is not, but we are trying to create a sustainable network for the future and, indeed, in communities that have experienced temporary closures, to look at what more we can do to make sure that post office services are delivered to those communities.

Michael Weir: The sad fact is that many post offices in rural areas continue to close and have been replaced by outreach services. The £20 million investment fund is said to enable the improvement and modernisation of branches, but that is not the problem—it is postmasters’ income in those branches. Is there anything in the statement that will allow the Post Office to give more direct subsidy to the income of postmasters in remote rural areas to stop the closure of those branches?

Jo Swinson: We have to recognise that across a network of nearly 12,000 branches some post offices are not commercially sustainable by themselves, but none the less they play a huge social and economic role in their community. I believe that there will always be a role for continued Government subsidy for those branches. That said, we are using taxpayers’ money, which must be spent judiciously. It is about making sure that those branches that can become viable without subsidy proceed without subsidy, but branches that require ongoing subsidy should have the certainty that that is the situation. At the moment, that is not the case, because those post offices do not know whether they are designated as community branches or whether they can access subsidies.
	That certainty will help, but as for the question whether we can increase the money for those branches on an ongoing revenue basis, that is not something which, in the current economic circumstances, I can promise to deliver for the hon. Gentleman. That said, investment in those branches is sometimes needed to ensure that they can become more sustainable, perhaps by improving the layout or structure of the office so that it can do more parcels work, for example. There could be ways to enhance income streams by using a bit of capital investment.

Points of Order

Graham Jones: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your advice on a reply given by the Prime Minister in Prime Minister’s questions, as he may inadvertently have misled the House? When asked about the impact of the bedroom tax on disabled people, he told the House: “Obviously, what we have done is to exempt disabled people who need an extra room.” Leading charities claim in a letter to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions today that there is “stark evidence” to the contrary.

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that attempted point of order. The juxtaposition of the two lines of argument has been made perfectly clear from his first quotation and from his second, of which no more is needed for me to rule. My ruling is that it is not a matter for the Chair. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but it is a point of debate. Of course, all Members, including Ministers, are responsible for the accuracy of what they say in the House, and everyone will be conscious of that. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, it is on the record, and I trust that he is satisfied.

Charles Walker: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to remaining orders and notices in the Order Paper—future business item 40 on changes to Standing Order No. 33, as tabled by the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House. The Procedure Committee, which I chair, has been in discussion with the office of the Leader of the House, and we thought we had been in a fruitful discussion. The Leader of the House is promoting the proposal that there may be three amendments to the motion on the Queen’s Speech, and the Procedure Committee has advised that it should be four amendments, so there seems to be a point of disagreement on the matter. I seek your advice: is it not the established principle that it is the Procedure Committee in this House, not the Executive, that leads changes to Standing Orders?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is substantively correct, as far as I am aware, on the latter front. Indeed, that point has been made to me in the past in other contexts by Ministers when they have thought it convenient to deploy that line of argument. I would always hope that Ministers would treat Committees of the House with courtesy. However, nothing disorderly within the rules of the House appears to have occurred and I do not think there is a point of order for the Chair. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what the Chair of the Procedure Committee—a very important Committee with a very illustrious Chair—has said, and we will leave it there for today.

Thomas Docherty: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be helpful if I were to release a letter that I received from the Clerks of this House which said, in effect, that there was no need for the Leader of the House to be helpful to you as the Chair, as you already had sufficient discretion as to how many subsequent amendments could be chosen on the day of the Queen’s Speech debates?

Mr Speaker: Well, in one sense it is very flattering that the hon. Gentleman seeks my advice and asks whether a proposed course of action on his part would be helpful or not, but I feel that the hon. Gentleman is, in most circumstances, his own best counsellor. He will judge whether or not he wishes to release the said letter. I think he can rest content with that emollient and non-committal response from me. He knows how to look after himself. We will leave it there for now.

Winter Fuel Allowance Payments

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Michael Weir: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the early payment of winter fuel allowance to eligible persons whose residences are not connected to the mains gas grid and whose principal source of fuel is home fuel oil, liquid petroleum gas or propane gas; and for connected purposes.
	This is an issue that I have raised on numerous occasions, during the passage of energy Bills, in debate and by means of a private Member’s Bill, and it has had support across the House on other occasions.
	I do not intend to speak on the general problem of fuel poverty, the details of which should be well known by Members in all parts of the House. I merely note that the percentage of households off the gas grid that are in fuel poverty is more than twice as high as those that are on the gas grid. I acknowledge that the present Government have taken some action in respect of off-gas grid consumers, including the establishment of the ministerial round table on heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas, which led to the Federation of Petroleum Suppliers’ customer charter.
	My proposal will not end fuel poverty for off-grid consumers; nor does it seek to extend winter fuel payments to additional groups or to tread on the contentious subject of means-testing which concerns some Members. It does not attempt to tackle the many issues that surround the topic of off-grid energy, but it is tightly drawn to give some relief to a particularly vulnerable sector—those pensioners who are off the gas grid. I have many of these pensioners in my constituency and they face a number of particular problems.
	Like all forms of energy, the price of home fuel oil has rocketed in recent years, but there is clear evidence that the price of home fuel oil rises in the early autumn and stays high over the winter period. This year it has been somewhat skewed by the long cold spring, with prices staying stubbornly high over the spring before falling in the summer, but they are now rising again. The rise in prices affects all areas of the United Kingdom over the winter months. It is important to note that this is as much an issue for the rural areas of England, Wales and particularly Northern Ireland as it is for the rural areas of Scotland.
	The House of Commons Library note that was produced for my Bill in the previous Session states:
	“The average costs of heating and providing hot water for a typical three bedroom house with LPG have been estimated at around £2,300 per year (based on April 2012 prices with a conventional boiler), heating oil is thought to cost around £1,700 and gas around £1,200.”
	The figures may now have changed but the general point stands: the cost of heating an average home with propane or home fuel oil is higher than heating with mains gas. Not only that, but the costs are also rising much more sharply. It is also important to note that the main use of LPG and home fuel oil is for heating, so although those homes generally have electricity, they still face greater costs.
	Traditionally the Government have called for an extension of the mains gas grid as one way of tackling the problem, but realistically such schemes will help only
	those homes where there is a gas mains nearby, although even then the costs can be very substantial. I have had cases in my constituency in urban areas where the quoted cost of connecting to the grid is thousands of pounds, even when the mains are relatively close by. In many rural and island areas, where the cost of connection would be enormous, there is absolutely no chance of that being done.
	The Government’s advice to switch does not work in a market where there is often a practical local monopoly on supplies. The problem in many rural areas is exacerbated by the fact that much of the housing is old and of a construction that makes it very difficult to install energy-saving measures, such as cavity wall insulation.
	Of course, these households will receive the same winter fuel allowances as pensioners on the gas grid, but the crucial difference is how the energy is delivered. Those who are on the gas grid will receive their winter fuel bill around the time that the winter fuel allowance is generally paid, and it therefore works well for them. Indeed, in the explanatory notes to the regulations that last amended the benefit, the previous Government said specifically:
	“They are paid in a lump sum each winter to ensure that money is available when fuel bills arrive.”
	This is clearly not the case for those off the gas grid. They face the difficulty that they have to pay for their LPG or home fuel oil up front at the beginning of winter, well before they have the benefit of the winter fuel allowance. Many find it difficult to do so and may not fill up the tank completely, leaving them having to do so, if they can afford it, in the depths of winter, which brings problems of its own in getting a supply through in bad weather. That has been a serious problem in many rural areas in past winters.
	The price of fuel is rising substantially as winter approaches, and even those suppliers who offer a fixed winter price will do so at a price higher than the summer price. My Bill suggests how we might tackle this problem. The current winter fuel allowances are paid as a result of regulations which specify a date by which pensioners must apply. It is worth noting that once they are on the system, they do not have to apply every year. Clause 1 seeks to vary the regulation to bring forward for those off the gas grid the qualifying date from late September to late July. Clause 2 seeks to bring forward the payment date for those off-gas grid to no later that 30 September to allow them to buy a complete tank of gas prior to the winter.
	These proposals would ensure that money is available when fuel bills arrive, as the regulations put it. I have debated this with the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) previously and, with the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, it seems to me that the
	objections to the proposal are bureaucratic excuses. The first objection is that the payment would have to be paid to everyone earlier or other claimants may feel aggrieved at being denied early access. The whole point, however, is to tackle the problem of having to pay for energy up front. Other claimants will have access to the allowance when their quarterly bills become due. I reiterate the point made in the memo to the regulations that the payment was meant to be available when the bill arrives: for those who pay up front, the most appropriate way to achieve parity would be to make payment as close as possible to the time of the outlay, which is precisely what I am attempting to do.
	The second objection is that the Department would need to create a separate category of people who are off-grid, and that the situation of individuals could change from year to year. I recall the Minister giving us a rundown of his own situation—by buying a house, he subsequently became connected to the grid. That objection seems ludicrous, as the number of new connections would be low, and unlikely to be a major problem. As Members know, it is not unheard of for the Department to insist on claimants of other benefits notifying a change in circumstances, so I do not see the problem. A low number of claimants are likely to be affected in any event.
	Moving the date forward could result in some people losing out on the payment in the initial year. I accept that that could be a problem, but it is hardly insurmountable. As I said, it would be a problem only in the first year of each claim, since once applicants are on the system they do not have to apply each year but receive an allowance automatically. It would be possible, for example, to allow off-grid consumers who miss the earlier date to apply at the later date but be transferred to the earlier date for year 2, so avoiding any difficulties. If, on the other hand, the Government have real problems with an earlier date, we could keep the September date and simply allow payment to off-grid consumers at an earlier date from year 2.
	There is nothing revolutionary about this proposal, which simply seeks a very minor change to begin to address the problems of off-gas-grid consumers by targeting a particularly vulnerable group. With political will, none of the problems is insurmountable. I hope that the House will give support to this Bill and allow it to proceed.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Mike Weir, Dr Eilidh Whiteford, Hywel Williams, Angus Robertson, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Sarah Newton, Mr Nigel Dodds, Jonathan Edwards, Ms Margaret Ritchie and Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil present the Bill.
	Mr Mike Weir accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February and to be printed (Bill 135).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	13th Allotted Day
	 — 
	Cost of Living

Christopher Leslie: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that the Government has failed to meet its own economic goals over the last three years with prices rising faster than wages for 40 out of 41 months, average earnings for working people £1,600 a year lower in real terms than in May 2010, economic growth far slower than expected, the Government’s pledge to balance the books by 2015 set to be broken and the UK’s credit rating downgraded; further notes that growth of 1.5 per cent is needed in every quarter between now and May 2015 in order to catch up the lost ground from three damaging years of flat-lining growth; believes the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Autumn Statement should take action to tackle the cost-of-living crisis which means that for most families there is still no economic recovery and to ensure recovery delivers rising living standards for all, is balanced and built to last; and calls on the Government to bring forward measures including an energy price freeze and long-term reforms to the energy market, an extension of free childcare for working parents of three and four year olds, action to boost long-term housing supply and a compulsory jobs guarantee for young people and the long-term unemployed.
	On Thursday next week the Chancellor of the Exchequer will address this House in his autumn statement. My hon. Friends will know that we have come to expect a tin ear from this Chancellor, who in last year’s autumn statement cut tax credits and child benefit in the face of millions of people struggling to make ends meet while sticking firmly by his decision to deliver a millionaires’ tax cut for the richest 1%. This year, the time has surely come for the Chancellor to wake up to the chronic and unremitting cost of living crisis facing millions of households across the country. Never before have so many worked so hard for so little, working week after week only to find that their pay packet has shrunk in real terms and that they are unable to borrow as much as the month before, with wages failing to keep up with prices and the pound in their pocket diminishing in value as everyday costs—rent, the weekly shop, child care, and gas and electricity bills—get higher and higher.

Therese Coffey: Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that the Government have taken many people out of income tax, such that next April 4,041 people in Suffolk Coastal will no longer pay income tax, alongside the freeze in council tax that they have enjoyed for the past few years?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Lady makes her point. Unfortunately, a lot of Conservatives like to pretend that they are giving with one hand, yet they are taking away so much more with the other—not just the tax rises that they pretend never happened but the unremitting rise in the costs that people face daily.

Jim Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Government give with one hand and take with another. Does he agree that of the £14 billion of tax adjustments last year, £11 billion was inflicted on women and their cost of living?

Christopher Leslie: Absolutely. In last week’s Opposition day debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) correctly highlighted not only the impact of the cost of living crisis on households up and down the country but how it is particularly hitting women.

Christopher Pincher: On the subject of giving and taking, is the hon. Gentleman aware that in 20-odd years of Labour control of Staffordshire county council, Labour hiked council tax time after time, whereas this year the Conservative-controlled county council has cut the tax? Does that not show that Tories give money back and Labour takes it away?

Christopher Leslie: The trouble for the hon. Gentleman is that an awful lot of Conservative councils have metaphorically stuck two fingers up to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and, indeed, the Chancellor by deciding to increase council tax because the Government’s approach to local government finance has squeezed services. Even Conservative councils and authorities are finding themselves in a position where they are raising council tax.

Sheila Gilmore: The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission has stated that the fiscal consolidation has been regressive. Does my hon. Friend think that that should be taken into account?

Kwasi Kwarteng: It has worked.

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend is correct. The fiscal consolidation is not only regressive but entirely the opposite of what the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) shouted from a sedentary position, because it has not worked. I will be talking about him in a moment as I have given him a special place in my speech; several hon. Members will know why. The notion that fiscal consolidation has been successful is disproved by the fact that we now have an inordinate level of borrowing thanks to the lack of economic growth.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Leslie: Of course I would love to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman and touched that he specially mentions me in his opening remarks. If the fiscal consolidation has not worked, why is the UK currently growing faster than any other country in the G7 and in the OECD?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman should be shamefaced even to mention economic growth when for the vast majority of his esteemed time as a Member of Parliament growth has flatlined and he has failed to deliver. He needs to recognise that unless we get some serious and sustained economic growth we will never deal with the deficit issues we have in this country.

Seema Malhotra: Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am by the amnesia among Government Members, bearing in mind that we were coming out of recession in 2010 but have since been flatlining and that they have failed to explain why prices have risen faster than wages for 40 out of 41 months?

Christopher Leslie: This is the problem that Government Members, who seem to think it is funny that we have not had any growth for such a long time, do not understand. They think, “Oh, the cost of living—that’s nothing to do with the economy, it’s a completely separate issue.” Not only my hon. Friends but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition have relentlessly called on Ministers to act now to alleviate the pressures that are facing many families’ household budgets. They do not just need to make the case for a living wage and a 10p starting tax rate; they need to act now to stand up to the large corporations who know that customers have little choice but to cough up and pay higher prices for life’s essentials.

Robert Flello: My hon. Friend is being extremely kind and generous with his time. Returning to Staffordshire, is he aware that a Money Advice Service report shows that in Stoke-on-Trent the number of people in debt has now reached the 35% mark? More than a third of people in Stoke-on-Trent are now suffering in debt because of this Government’s policies.

Christopher Leslie: The report published by the Money Advice Service, which the Government trumpeted as an organisation that was set up some while ago, is very startling. Certainly, the number of people in my hon. Friend’s constituency who are suffering from indebtedness is exceptionally high. In my constituency, over 40% of people are struggling to make ends meet when faced with these crippling burdens and debts.

Robert Halfon: Whenever the Government introduce fundamental measures to help with the cost of living, such as freezing council tax, freezing fuel duty and cutting it in 2011, and cutting taxes for lower earners, why do you vote against them?

Christopher Leslie: I do not know whether you voted against those measures, Mr Deputy Speaker, but we appreciate any efforts to help alleviate the cost of living. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that when people fill up their tank at the petrol station, they think, “How grateful we are to the Conservatives for the cost of petrol today”? When it comes to the cost of living—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been very generous so far, but he cannot give way to six people at once. Let us get our act together and try to get through the debate. There are 21 Members who want to speak, and I am sure that other Members will want to hear them.

Christopher Leslie: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am still on the first page of my speech. I remind Government Members that the profits of the energy companies, which in many ways are the drivers hurting many of our constituents, have risen astronomically in recent years. Since the general election, energy company profits are up from £2 billion to £3.7 billion. Members will have read in The Independent yesterday that profits were £30 per household at the time of the general election, that they rose to £53 per household in 2012 and that they are now expected to be £105 per household this year, and yet the Government continually cower in trepidation of the big six gas and electricity corporations.
	They are not just recoiling from any willingness to challenge their behaviour, but in their cowardice the Government defend the status quo as though nothing can be done.
	Labour says that energy bills can and should be frozen while Parliament legislates to reset the energy market to one that provides true competition, reduces scope for excessive profiteering and offers reductions for customers when wholesale prices fall.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Christopher Leslie: I will give way to Government Members if they can answer this point: what was the Government’s reaction to our call to take action on energy prices? They dithered and argued among themselves, frozen like rabbits in headlights, flailed around and attacked us for daring to stand up to excessive profiteering and then, finally, No. 10 Downing street said, “Wear a jumper.”

Brooks Newmark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Leslie: I will give way to one of the woollier Members on the Government Benches.

Brooks Newmark: Fuel prices would be 13p a litre higher if Labour were in power. Consumers have saved £170 on average, which is a saving on the cost of living. That is one area in which the Government have done a lot to help motorists.

Christopher Leslie: When the public faced difficulties, the previous Government took action to freeze prices and duty for petrol and diesel. The hon. Gentleman mentions a fictional 13p and seems to think that when people fill up their petrol tanks they say, “Thanks goodness these prices are so low; I must thank the hon. Gentleman.” He is living in cloud cuckoo land. The Government are not just out of touch; they are out of ideas and they are running out of time.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Christopher Leslie: I will give way in a moment. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Everybody else has sat down, but somehow the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) feels he can hang around for another five minutes. I assure him that he cannot. The Minister will give way when he wishes to, not when the hon. Gentleman demands. [Interruption.] I do not need help from others, either.

Christopher Leslie: I think that shows that we have touched a nerve. We know that the best we can expect from the autumn statement—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Did somebody shout out something about cowardice? No; okay, carry on.

Christopher Leslie: I did not catch what was said, but we will see what Hansard records.
	We know what will be in the autumn statement next week. The best we can expect is that the Chancellor will probably transfer about £100 or so off people’s energy bill and on to their tax bill instead. That is a ruse.

Robert Halfon: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has said that his Government tried to help motorists, but he inadvertently forgot to mention that they raised fuel duty 12 times.

Lindsay Hoyle: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not a point of order. He has made that point on many occasions and I did not need reminding.

Christopher Leslie: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Toby Perkins: My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous in taking interventions. May I encourage him to continue taking them, because every time he does so he utterly destroys the weak arguments made by Government Members? Does my hon. Friend recognise, like the 5,000 people who signed the “freeze that bill” petition in Chesterfield, that the Conservative party has nothing to say on energy prices because it is utterly beholden to the very energy companies that are impoverishing my constituents?

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend is correct. The Government are afraid of the energy companies. We are not yet sure why they are so afraid to stand up to the big six, but it is clear that the Chancellor’s solution of simply shifting £100 or so off an energy bill and on to the taxes of all our constituents will not convince people that they have the answers. The switch is so obvious it can be seen it in the dark. It is a palliative that merely shunts the costs from a bill payer to a taxpayer. It fails to tackle the root cause of the problem, which, as my hon. Friend has said, is the excessive profiteering of the utility companies. Government Members are going to have to try a lot better than that next week.

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He makes an extremely important point on the need to freeze bills, which is largely what has happened over recent years to council taxes in England. In Wales, however, where the Labour party runs the Welsh Government, there have been council tax increases of nearly 9% over recent years. That is a bill that can genuinely be frozen by politicians. Will the hon. Gentleman stand up to the Labour party in Wales to ensure that my constituents are not forced to pay 9% increases in council taxes?

Tobias Ellwood: That was worth waiting for.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We can all make a judgment about that, but it might be helpful to remind Members that there are many speakers to come, so if we are going to have interventions they have to be short and not speeches. I will be honest with Members: anyone on my list of speakers who makes a long intervention will go down the list accordingly.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) is short in his contributions on most occasions. I note that he wanted to change the subject from energy prices. The problem is that, time after time, the Conservative party has no answers for the public, who want politicians—their elected representatives—to take action on the cost of living, particularly on energy prices. As long as the hon. Gentleman and all his
	colleagues let the rip-off merchants and unfair profiteers continue with business as usual, the public will take exception to the deceitful claim that we are all in it together.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Christopher Leslie: I want to make some progress.
	For most people life is getting harder and for most people there is still no economic recovery, but that is not what they were promised. Before the election, the Prime Minister said:
	“Our plans don’t involve an increase in VAT”
	and
	“I wouldn’t change child benefit”.
	He also said that tax credits would be cut only “for families on £50,000” and that his party would
	“not scrap the Education Maintenance Allowances”.
	Those are the promises the Conservatives made before the general election. They famously airbrushed a poster of the Prime Minister and in their efforts to cover up their website pledges they are trying to airbrush the past.

Tobias Ellwood: I urge the hon. Gentleman to be cautious about questioning whether this subject is being taken seriously by Government Members, because the record should note that there are more Government Members than Opposition Members present to debate this important issue. On energy, will he now concede that Labour failed to ensure that the lights will be kept on in this country by failing to invest in nuclear energy? More than six nuclear power stations have closed down. That is why energy prices have gone up—because we are not making our own energy.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I asked for short interventions. Please shorten them, Mr Ellwood, or we will not take any more from you. I am sure you will want to get another one in later.

Christopher Leslie: There are only another 18 months during which there will be more Conservative Members than Labour ones in this Chamber. I hope that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) is watching the clock, because they are running out of time.
	The Prime Minister has broken not only that list of promises, but more records than most Prime Ministers over the decades, and not in a good way. How has he been a record breaker? Since entering No. 10 Downing street, he has delivered a record-breaking cost of living crisis, with wages failing to keep pace with prices for an unprecedented 40 out of his 41 months in office. That is the longest period of diminishing real wage values since records began.
	A record-breaking number of people now rely on food banks just to get by—it has tripled in the past year alone—with more than 350,000 families requiring food parcels in the past six months.

Stephen Doughty: On the cost of living crisis that is driving people to food banks, does my hon. Friend share my shock at the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) saying that people use food banks because they are drug addicts and cannot manage their money, rather than because of the cost of living crisis?

Christopher Leslie: I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan if he wants to explain.

Alun Cairns: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) has inadvertently misled the House in that the quotes attributed to me are wholly inaccurate. I ask him to withdraw what he said.

Lindsay Hoyle: I do not know whether what was said is true or false, but the hon. Gentleman has put the facts on the record. I am sure that that point can be sorted out later, no doubt over a cup of tea.

Stephen Doughty: rose—

Christopher Leslie: I will happily give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, so that he can relay the quote that he has to the House. Perhaps a journalist wrote it down incorrectly, but I am sure that there is an explanation.
	The point about food banks is that the crisis is so bad that the Red Cross has launched an emergency food appeal right here in the United Kingdom, something that has not happened since the second world war.
	The Prime Minister’s broken records include real-term wage levels plunging to a new low and average weekly earnings at their lowest level since the Office for National Statistics started to record the figures in 2001. Not only has he hit record lows on incomes, but he has delivered record fuel bills and average household energy costs—

Stephen Doughty: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to raise another point of order, but the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan suggested that I may have misled the House—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Let me reassure both hon. Gentlemen that I am not going to decide who is right. You have each claimed that you are right and that the other is wrong. It is on the record, and people can make up their minds tomorrow. I want to continue with this debate.

Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth may have time later to elaborate on the quote. It may be incorrect, and we will see whether journalists want to look into that.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to list this Government’s catalogue of broken promises on the cost of living crisis, but the crisis is far worse than the spiralling energy bills and the rising cost of living. He was moving on to make the serious point that, at the same time as prices are increasing, people’s wages have plummeted since 2010 by about £1,600. Is that not the real cause of this cost of living crisis?

Christopher Leslie: Absolutely. This is an unprecedented period—we can characterise it as record breaking—during which wages have not been able to keep pace with the costs our constituents are facing.

James Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Leslie: In a moment.
	Let me give another example, private sector rents are at a record high. Average rent rises across England and Wales have just hit the highest level ever recorded, at £757 a month.

Robert Flello: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Christopher Leslie: Will my hon. Friend allow me to make a little more progress on housing? The Prime Minister is also a record breaker because he is presiding over the lowest net supply of housing since records began. The Government’s own figures show that the number of dwellings added to our housing stock fell by 8% last year, which is the lowest level since such statistics were first collected. That is quite some achievement. It does not bode well for the affordability needed by many first-time buyers in this country. By the way, a record number of people are seeking help from the housing charity Shelter, which has reported an all-time high of almost 175,000 calls in the past year, up 10% on the previous year.
	Government Members even like to portray the jobs market as wholly positive, but a record number of people are working part time because they cannot find full-time jobs. Nearly 1.5 million people say that they need to find full-time work, but cannot, which is the highest figure since records began.

Brian H Donohoe: I have done some work on this subject. Is not a consequence of the number of part-time jobs advertised not just in my constituency but across the country that wages have dropped to today’s level?

Christopher Leslie: That is precisely what baffles Government Members so much: they cannot understand the ingratitude of the British people, who somehow seem not to recognise the work that the Government are supposedly doing. The reality is that these are the pressure points—the points of stress and anxiety—faced by so many people up and down this country.

James Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman has been very persistent, so I will give way.

James Morris: It has taken the hon. Gentleman 20-odd minutes to talk about one of the keys to solving the cost of living crisis, which is the creation of new jobs. I presume he welcomes the 11% fall in unemployment in his constituency during the past year, with a 15% fall in youth unemployment. Is that not absolutely key to our recovery and to solving the cost of living crisis that he has taken so long to talk about?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman, whose name is sometimes mixed up with that of others, should do better than to pick on my constituency of Nottingham East, where unemployment has been a persistent and long-running problem. Of course there have been fluctuations in the past few months, but I must tell him that the number of young people out of work for more than a year on jobseeker’s allowance has rocketed astronomically in this country: it is up 127% since the last general election. The number of long-term unemployed,
	who have been out of work for two years or more—we must turn our attention to that persistent problem—has gone up 374% since the last general election.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Christopher Leslie: I just want the House to hear a few more record-breaking facts about the Prime Minister. Do my hon. Friends remember, from a Budget some time ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s poetic declaration that he would create
	“a Britain carried aloft by the march of the makers”?—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 966.]
	We now have a record-breaking trade deficit with the European Union of £6 billion, which is a sign that the rebalancing of our economy has tilted in the wrong direction. The “Guinness Book of Records” is already familiar with the Prime Minister’s achievement in delivering the slowest ever, snail’s pace recovery out of an economic downturn since records began, taking Britain longer to claw our way back than after the great depression. That record-breaking performance is thanks to the drag anchor policies that have held back growth for the past three years.
	The record-breaking let-down on growth has of course led to the Prime Minister’s biggest failure of all—more borrowing than any peacetime Government in history. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have added £430 billion to our national debt in the three years since May 2010, which is more than the last Labour Government did in 13 years and more than any previous Government have done in peacetime. They are record-breaking borrowers, because no Government have ever neglected economic growth quite like this one.

Debbie Abrahams: Is it not a fact that the economy will have to grow by 1.5% every quarter to make up for the lack of growth since 2010?

Christopher Leslie: Government Members see what they regard as green shoots for our economy. They hope that the public will just forget what has happened for the past three and a half years, but the public have long memories and will remember the harm and anxiety that the cost of living crisis is now causing them. Perhaps those record-breaking extremes from this Prime Minister and Government reflect the new extremism in the Conservative party and the drift away from the centre ground of British politics.

Gordon Birtwistle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Leslie: I will come to the Liberal Democrats in a moment. I am talking about the Conservative party.
	The Conservatives and the Prime Minister like to pretend that they understand the concerns of hard-working people. When they finally realise the strength of public opinion, they will grudgingly come up with a half-baked effort on energy bills, just as they finally caved in with a long overdue cap on payday loans. The trouble is that they just don’t get it, because their hearts aren’t in it. As with the action on payday loans and banking reform in this week alone, why does the Chancellor always have to be pushed into doing the right thing?
	The forces of moderation in the Conservative party—I am looking around desperately to see them; perhaps there are a couple of them here—complain that they are seen as the party of the rich and that voters do not trust their motives. Twenty-five of the dwindling number of those anxious Conservative Members of Parliament had a meeting with the Prime Minister to express their concerns, although that was before some of them announced that they were standing down from Parliament.
	The moderates—there is one opposite me—are right to worry, because the Prime Minister’s pretence that he represents the middle of British politics has finally stretched beyond belief, as time and again his true instincts shine through. In the lord mayor’s banquet speech a fortnight ago, the mask slipped as the Prime Minister proclaimed the need for permanent austerity and the shrinking of public investment in perpetuity. The true ideological intentions of the Conservatives are there for all to see. Perhaps that is why the party’s Free Enterprise Group published its plans—

Kwasi Kwarteng: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Leslie: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because he is in the Conservative Free Market Group. He wrote the pamphlet. Will he tell us what it was about his pamphlet that hit the headlines?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I am very pleased and somewhat flattered that he should be referring to the Free Enterprise Group on the Floor of the House. What was the size of the deficit when his party left government in 2010? What was the absolute size of the deficit and what was the proportion of the deficit—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We have got the point.

Christopher Leslie: The national debt was about £800 million. The national debt—[Hon. Members: “The deficit.”] I know what the hon. Gentleman said. I could hear what he said. I am giving him the figures. The national debt—[Interruption.] It seems that Government Members do not want to talk about the national debt. The national debt was about £800 million. It is now £1.2 trillion. As Brucie might say, “Higher, higher!”

Brooks Newmark: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: It had better be a point of order, Mr Newmark, if you want to get in early. I do not want to have to put you near the bottom, because I know that this matter is important to you.

Brooks Newmark: I want clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I was not taking a point of clarification, but a point of order.

Brooks Newmark: It is a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) was asked a question about the deficit. Unfortunately, his answer was about debt. Rather like Rev. Paul Flowers, he does not know basic economics. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I will let that go. It is up to the shadow Minister how he wishes to answer the question. It is not for you, Mr Newmark, to waste the House’s time on an irrelevant—[Interruption.] Order. On an irrelevant point of order. If you do not mind, we will have no more.

Christopher Leslie: It goes to show—

Nick de Bois: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Leslie: I have not even said a word in response to the point of order. I will do so if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. It just goes to show that the Conservatives will do everything they can to distract attention from the cost of living crisis that is facing this country. As Corporal Jones might have put it, “They don’t like it up ’em!”
	The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng)—

Geraint Davies: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. You also want to speak, Mr Davies. You are constantly on your feet. I want to hear Mr Leslie. I also want to hear what the Government have to say. I will not hear either of them with the amount of time we have taken so far.

Christopher Leslie: That is a good point, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will be brief in talking about the hon. Member for Spelthorne and the Free Enterprise Group. The Free Enterprise Group published plans to slap a 15% increase on essentials such as food and children’s clothes through VAT and to triple the tax on heating bills. A number of hon. Members who are in the Chamber today are members of the Free Enterprise Group. They might be shuffling away from the hon. Member for Spelthorne now.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Leslie: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants to account for that plan. Does he agree with charging VAT at 15% on food and children’s clothes and increasing the tax on heating bills—yes or no?

Charlie Elphicke: What was the size of the deficit at the time of the general election in 2010? Was it £150 billion-plus—yes or no?

Christopher Leslie: There is no answer to my question from the hon. Gentleman. I have given him the figures for the national debt.
	The extremism and rightwards shift in the Conservative party are visible for all to see. As we can tell from the tactics that they are using, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and all the Conservative Back Benchers are scraping the barnacles off the 1992 election strategy. They have a barely disguised plan to fight the next election in the gutter. Their tactics are visible for all to see.
	The Prime Minister once spoke fondly of environmentalism while hugging the huskies. Perhaps I should ask this on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker,
	but is it using unparliamentary language to quote No. 10 when it allegedly said that it wanted to cut out all of the “green crap”? I know that that is appalling language, but it is a quotation from No. 10 Downing street. The Government are certainly cutting some things out: 578 Sure Start children’s centres have been cut, 76 NHS walk-in centres have been cut, 48 accident and emergency departments have been shut, 200 ambulance stations have been axed and 6,000 nurses have gone from the NHS, but 707 food banks have opened. Perhaps Government Members regard that as a success.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Christopher Leslie: I will take one final intervention from my hon. Friend.

Helen Jones: Does my hon. Friend realise that the reason why some of us worry about the proposals of the Free Enterprise Group is that they are all of a piece with what the Tories have done already, including a drop of £35 a week in real wages in my constituency, the imposition of the bedroom tax on the poorest people and, contrary to what they say, increases in council tax for the poorest people? The reason why Tory Back Benchers worry about being seen as the party of the rich is that they are the party of the rich.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am concerned because the debate has been going for 36 minutes already. The time limit on Back-Bench speeches is due to be five minutes. I do not want it to go below that. At this rate, a lot of Members will drop off the list.

Christopher Leslie: I want to draw my remarks to a close, so I will not take any more interventions.
	In a moment, my hon. Friends will be subjected to the Minister claiming that the Government alone are responsible for the long overdue return of economic growth. What he cannot grasp is that growth is appearing despite his policies, not because of them. As the Nobel prize-winning economist, Paul Krugman, said of the Government’s attitude just the other day,
	“It’s like hitting yourself over the head with a baseball bat for years. Then, you stop hitting yourself with the baseball bat and say, ‘See? I feel much better now—hitting myself with a baseball bat was clearly the right thing to do’.”
	That sums up their view perfectly. They do not understand that only the return of strong economic growth will tackle the deficit in any meaningful way. Three years on, they still have not cottoned on.
	The reason we have a cost of living crisis is that the historic connection between economic growth and household wealth has been severed. Even though it looks like we are finally seeing some growth in some parts of the economy, that growth is not being shared fairly. Indeed, GDP per capita remains flat. I pay tribute to the companies and households that have managed to keep it together despite the Chancellor’s inaction. What we need now is help for those who are trying to do their best—the people who never complain, who never say that they should be at the front of the queue, who go to work and who manage as best they can. Those people need real help with their energy bills and child care costs. They need us to tackle low pay and to freeze business rates for small firms.
	The challenge for the autumn statement is to take action now on the cost of living, not to use sleight of hand to pile more burdens on the taxpayer. We need long-term reforms that ensure that there is a balanced recovery that is built to last, not short-term, knee-jerk flip-flopping. We need fairness for the many, not tax cuts for the few. The Government are out of touch with the mood of the public—the wealthy elite are looking after the wealthy elite and are all in it together. They are timid in the face of excessive profiteering from big energy companies, while the rest get broken promises on the economy and the deficit from a Government who are lurching to the right and reverting to type. The British people cannot afford this Government any longer. Britain deserves better.

Sajid Javid: When the Opposition first tabled this motion, the title referred to the Government’s “economic failure”. The word “failure” has been mysteriously removed and replaced with “policy”. Perhaps the Opposition originally asked the Rev. Paul Flowers, who was their economic adviser, to help draft the motion. Now that they have been forced to sack him, they have had to amend the deluded original title of the motion. Even before the debate started, the Opposition have had to back down.
	The Government recognise that many people up and down the country are facing living standards challenges. Each and every week I speak to many hard-working people in my constituency who are still suffering from Labour’s recession, and whose businesses or employers were hit hard in 2008 and 2009 and are still feeling the impact. Of course we all want the situation to improve.

Geraint Davies: On failure, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the movement of debt to GDP from 55% when he came into office, to 75% now and 85% by 2015, is a sign of failure both in increasing debt to a higher level than we borrowed throughout our term, and through not getting any growth?

Sajid Javid: I accept that the sharpest move in debt to GDP that this country has seen in recent times was under 13 years of Labour rule when national debt more than doubled. We will take no lectures from the Labour party about growing public debt. Allow me to remind the House, especially Labour Members, why people are facing such challenges.

Helen Jones: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I note that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is not present. Can you investigate whether that is because the Lib Dem part of the coalition no longer takes responsibility for economic policy?

Lindsay Hoyle: As the hon. Lady well knows, that is not a point of order. It is certainly not a matter for the Chair and does not want to be. I call the Financial Secretary.

Sajid Javid: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller).

Richard Fuller: I was concerned that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury did not seem to understand the difference between deficit and
	debt, which I thought would be a prerequisite for talking about economics. Will my hon. Friend explain to the House what the circumstances were when this Government came to office?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend tempts me and I will do just that in a moment, after I have given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle).

Gordon Birtwistle: The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury did not want to take an intervention from a Liberal Democrat, perhaps because it used to be a Labour Member who sat here and now it is a Liberal Democrat. Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that in 2009 Burnley was classed as a basket case under the Labour Government with a Labour MP, but it has now won an award for the most enterprising town in the UK? Unemployment has collapsed under this Government.

Sajid Javid: I will comment on that because it reflects the hard work of the people of Burnley and their local MP. Why are people facing challenges up and down the country? The reason is simple and can be summed up in just three words: the Labour party.

Toby Perkins: The Minister asks why people are suffering a cost of living crisis, and he referred previously to Labour’s recession. Labour’s recession was over by the time he became a Member of Parliament, and it was a recession caused by the bankers. Will he remind the House what he was doing when Labour’s recession finished?

Sajid Javid: What I can do is remind the hon. Gentleman what was going on in his constituency during Labour’s recession. During Labour’s last term, unemployment in his constituency increased by 56%. So far, under this Government it has declined by 26%, which I think he would welcome.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sajid Javid: I will give way to my hon. Friends in a moment. The Opposition spokesman talked about breaking records, so let us take a quick look at Labour’s record breakers—they are enough to make Roy Castle jump up and down with excitement. Labour gave this country the deepest recession in living memory, and the biggest budget deficit in our post-war history, and the largest in the G20. To answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, Labour was borrowing almost £160 billion—£300,000 a minute, or £5,000 every second. Labour gave this country the largest bail-out the world has ever seen. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I find it strange that I cannot hear the Financial Secretary because Government Members are making so much noise. I would have thought they ought to listen to him, just as I wish to hear him.

Sajid Javid: I think the House missed hearing about another record breaker that Labour gave this country, which was the largest bank bail-out the world has ever seen. That is Labour’s legacy, and if the Opposition spokesman wants to apologise, he is welcome to do so.

Christopher Leslie: The Minister, who worked for Deutsche Bank before the general election, might wish to explain and answer a specific question on borrowing, the deficit and national debt. Can he tell the House how much the Chancellor has borrowed and added to the national debt since the last general election? What is that amount of money in cash terms?

Sajid Javid: We know that if we had continued the plans recommended by the Labour party, the country would be borrowing a lot more. According to the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies, Labour plans to borrow at least £200 billion more, which would push up borrowing costs for many hard-working families up and down the country.

Guy Opperman: Does the Minister agree with the North East chamber of commerce, which said that the most important factor in raising living standards is to increase skills levels with an increase in skills funding and a doubling of apprenticeships? Is that not the true foundation of a long-term recovery?

Sajid Javid: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, and I am sure he agrees that the Government were right to increase funding for apprenticeships, which are up by more than 1.5 million since the start of 2010.

Brian H Donohoe: Will the Minister accept that a number of the jobs brought into the economy are part time? Would it be better for the Government to calculate the number of jobs in terms of hours worked by individuals, and would they find that the number of jobs has actually dropped in real terms if those hours are taken into account?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman tempts me and I will come to jobs shortly as there is plenty to tell. He should recognise that employment is at its highest level since records began, and that most jobs created are full time. Also, there is nothing wrong with part-time work.

Andrew Selous: Because the Government have taken the difficult decisions necessary and stuck to a long-term plan, the claimant count has fallen by more than a third in my constituency, where 730 more people are in work than when the other lot were in power.

Sajid Javid: The information my hon. Friend provides is true of almost every constituency in the country.

Debbie Abrahams: The Government consistently make that point, but it is totally misleading. The employment rate is lower now than it was in 2008. Absolute figures mean nothing; the Minister must quote a rate to make them mean something.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady is still fairly new to the House, but she will know that the Government changed hands in 2010. There is no point making comparisons with 2008. She will be interested to hear that unemployment in her constituency increased by a shocking 119% during Labour’s last term. I will say that again, because Labour Members have a hard time believing it: unemployment increased in her constituency by 119%. Under this Government, unemployment in her constituency is down by 24%.

Neil Carmichael: The Government have increased the number of private sector jobs by 1.4 million, and 88% of those jobs in the past six months were full time. Does that illustrate that we are rebalancing the economy towards manufacturing and engineering, which we definitely need to do? That is part of an economic plan to recover this country from the disastrous situation in which we found ourselves in 2010.

Sajid Javid: I agree completely with my hon. Friend—I shall make further remarks on that in a moment.
	In short, Labour left our country a lot poorer, and it still has not apologised for the damage it did, despite many opportunities, including this afternoon. The Labour Government destroyed the aspirations of millions of hard-working people up and down the country. Instead, Labour Members sneer over the Dispatch Box and oppose every single measure the Government take to clean up the mess they left behind.

Robert Flello: I say in all sincerity that it would have been nice to see the Minister’s boss in the Chamber—where is he?—but will he answer this question? A moment ago—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen for a moment. A moment ago at the Dispatch Box—Hansard will show this—the Minister criticised the Labour Government for bailing out the banks. Is he saying we should not have done that?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman needs to listen more closely to my remarks. He will be interested to know that unemployment increased by 104% in his constituency during Labour’s last term. The bail-outs and the other action the previous Government took did not help unemployment in his constituency but, thankfully, under this Government, unemployment there is down by 24%.
	It is good to remind ourselves that office and government are a privilege given to us by the people of the United Kingdom. We are the tenants; the British public are our landlord. The Labour party was the tenant who trashed the house. It is left to this Government to clean up its mess.
	We need to treat the public with the respect they deserve. We know that times are tough. Labour left our country a lot poorer, and families are feeling it. That is why we had to put in place a long-term, sustainable economic plan to fix things.

Yasmin Qureshi: The Minister says that Labour left the economy in difficulties or a mess, but does he accept that, in 2006, the GDP to national debt ratio was about 42%, whereas it is now 91%? How is that responsible?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Lady has made her intervention. She cannot keep going.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady needs to check her figures. She will see that, as I have said, the sharpest rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio took place during the last 10 years of the Labour Government.

Kwasi Kwarteng: With regard to the deficit, why, for nine years, and for seven years of economic growth, did the Labour Government run persistent deficits?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He reminds the House that the previous Government began running a deficit from 2001, way before any financial crisis. They ran a structural deficit from 2006 onwards. Hon. Members will remember that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), tried to deny that until he was corrected by the International Monetary Fund.
	Without a credible economic plan, we cannot have a plan for helping families with living standards challenges. Anyone, including the Labour party, can come up with a list of interventions, but they are completely meaningless and unsustainable if there is no long-term economic plan to back them up. Labour’s only plan is for more spending, more borrowing and more debt, which is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.

Charlie Elphicke: I have a deep concern that many hard-working people lost earnings when interest was suspended on Co-op bonds in March. I am concerned that, 11 days later, it lent substantial amounts of money to the Labour party. Will the inquiry cover the bank’s relationship with the Co-operative party and whether the bank was unduly influenced by the national executive committee?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend raises a good point, but he will know that I am not in the best position to answer his question in detail. Perhaps the shadow Chief Secretary will rise to his feet to do so. I understand that he is a Labour and Co-operative Member and receives money from the Co-op. I am happy to give way if he would like to answer the question.

Christopher Leslie: I am proud to be a Co-operative Member and a supporter of mutuality—I thought Conservative Members supported that, too. Will the Minister tell us the number of occasions on which his Treasury had meetings to discuss the Co-op Verde deal and the takeover of those Lloyds branches? How many times did Treasury Ministers have those meetings after the general election? Can he give us that fact now?

Sajid Javid: I am sure that question will be looked at further during the Co-op inquiry. The number and nature of meetings between the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chancellor and Co-op representatives will also be looked at—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. The House cannot hear the Minister. If hon. Members want to argue with him, they must hear what he has to say first.

Richard Graham: rose—

Sajid Javid: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I give way to my hon. Friend.

Richard Graham: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way—he has been gracious throughout the debate. It is appropriate that we follow Madam Deputy Speaker’s advice and listen to him carefully. I would
	reinforce his point from my experience in Gloucester. Under the previous Government, 6,000 people in business lost their jobs, but since the last election, 3,000 new business jobs have been created and four times the number of apprentices have been employed, and unemployment and youth unemployment are lower. Does the Minister agree that this debate should not be on the cost of living, but be about the cost of having a Labour Government to people with jobs in my constituency?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right. Hon. Members know—I am highlighting this as much as I can in the debate—just how many lives and aspirations the Labour Government destroyed in their time in office.
	The House has just heard the shadow Treasury Minister. His speech was more interesting for what was not in it than for what was. There is no talk today of plan B—[Interruption.] What the shadow Treasury did not mention was predictable. Let me say what it was, because four or five months ago, we heard what he did not say today in virtually every single speech from Labour Front Benchers. We heard no talk today of plan B. I did not hear anyone say, “Too far, too fast.” There was no mention of a double-dip, let alone of a triple-dip, because Labour Members know that there has been only one dip in recent times: Labour’s dip. They have comprehensively lost the economic argument. They have no plan and no answers for the problems they helped to create.

Tom Blenkinsop: rose—

Sajid Javid: Does the hon. Gentleman have any answers to the problems Labour helped to create?

Tom Blenkinsop: I have no answer to the fact that we saw more growth in the last quarter of 2010 under the Labour Government than we did in the whole of 2011.

Sajid Javid: Let us talk about the growth in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the record 92% increase in unemployment in his constituency in Labour’s last term? I notice that he did not refer to the 18% decline under this Government.

James Morris: My hon. Friend refers to what the Labour Front-Bench team will not mention. In the past two years, export growth in the west midlands has gone up by 30%—the best performance of any region. Is that not further evidence that the Government are on track with a sustainable, long-term plan to rebalance the British economy?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right. As a fellow west midlands MP, I have seen at first hand record growth, particularly in manufacturing and in the car industry.
	Enough on the mistakes of the past. This Government are working hard to secure the country’s future. The only way we can deliver a sustained improvement in living standards is to continue to tackle the economy’s problems head-on and to deliver a recovery that works for all.

Guto Bebb: My hon. Friend talks about the future. How does he respond to the approval, given by the Labour party yesterday, of a 5% increase in council tax in my constituency—a decision made with no consideration of the cost of living for my constituents?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. What goes on in Wales is an excellent example of what a Labour Government would do, if they had the chance, in the United Kingdom. As well as increases in council tax, there has been a 10% cut in the NHS budget in Wales. That tells us exactly what Labour’s priorities are.

Stewart Hosie: On exports, in 2011 the deficit for trading goods was £100 billion. In 2012, that rose to £110 billion in the red, and has been running at about £20 billion in the red every quarter this year. I am not sure if I am seeing the green shoots of export recovery that the Minister is seeing.

Sajid Javid: I will speak on exports in more detail shortly. I am not sure that Scottish independence would help the record on exports.
	Under this Government, Labour’s record budget deficit is down by a third, confidence and investment is on the rise, and the economy has turned a corner. The UK is growing faster than any other developed economy, including the US, Germany and Japan. Just last week, while downgrading global growth the OECD revised up UK growth by more than any other developed country. That growth is spread broadly across all sectors of the economy. Recent survey data show that construction is at its strongest level in six years and that activity in the services sector has not been this strong since 1997. New orders in manufacturing have risen to their highest level since 1995, according to the CBI.

Gordon Marsden: The Financial Secretary is taking pains to show that there is a long-term economic plan. What sort of plan is it when the number of young people on jobseeker’s allowance has gone up by 174% in a year? He and his colleagues have failed to provide 19 to 24-year-olds in traineeships with any funding to continue, JSA or otherwise.

Sajid Javid: I can tell the hon. Gentleman how our plan is panning out. Under the previous Government, he saw a 91% increase in unemployment in his constituency. Unemployment in his constituency is down by 7% under this Government. Youth unemployment is down by 24%. Rather than making cheap political points, he would do well to welcome the economic improvement in his constituency.

Debbie Abrahams: The Minister was making an international comparison with the UK economy. I remind him that the UK economy remains 2.5% below its pre-crisis peak, and the US economy is now 4.6% above its pre-crisis peak.

Sajid Javid: The US did not have a Government as incompetent as the one we had in Britain, who boasted the sharpest decline in GDP in this country in living memory and in our post-war history. When I said earlier that Labour left this country poorer, I am sure the hon. Lady realised—if she did not, I am happy to
	repeat it—that we saw the sharpest decline in GDP of any major developed country during Labour’s term in office.
	Our economic plan is pulling in growing inward investment, with inflows into the UK in the first half of this year greater than any other country in the world except China. As I mentioned earlier, we are increasing exports to growing economies. From 2009 to 2012, exports to Brazil were up by 49%, to India by 59%, to China by 96%, and to Russia by 133%. We have become a net exporter of cars for the first time since 1976.

Tom Blenkinsop: Will the Minister please explain why, since 2011, lending to small and medium-sized enterprises has gone down by £30 billion? Long-term female unemployment in my constituency has increased by 144% since his Government came to power.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman will know that SME lending was hit from 2010 to 2011 because of Labour’s banking crisis. We had the deepest banking crisis and the largest bank bail-out the world has ever seen. What did he think the impact was going to be? He should welcome the Government’s action to help SME lending, including the funding for lending scheme, which has helped thousands of companies.
	The Opposition claim that economic growth is not felt by people across the UK and that living standards are falling. The truth is that the previous Labour Government left the country a lot poorer and, as a result, many hard-working families are finding it difficult. Our plan for the economy, the plan that has put our country on a path to prosperity, will help those families. What better way to increase standards of living than by making sure that as many Britons as possible can take home a steady wage at the end of each month? With more than 1.4 million private sector jobs created in the past three years—more private sector jobs created in three years of this Government than in 13 years of the previous Labour Government—we now have more people employed than at any other time in our history.
	We are also taking measures that help keep more cash in the pockets of hard-working people up and down the country, while economic confidence has helped to keep mortgage bills low. If mortgage rates rose by just 1%, the average mortgage bill would increase by about £1,000 a year. We are also letting people keep more of their hard-earned income. Our increases in the personal allowance are worth £700 each year to every average taxpayer—a tax cut for more than 25 million people—while 2.7 million people on low incomes have been taken out of income tax altogether.

Simon Kirby: Does the Minister realise that from next April 36,000 people in my constituency will be better off because of this policy?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right to make that point. I think every MP in this illustrious House could share similar numbers. Indeed, in the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s constituency, 4,000 people have been taken out of income tax altogether and more than 38,000 have had an income tax cut.
	Our changes to the personal allowance mean that someone working full time on the minimum wage has seen their income tax bill more than halved under this
	Government. It also means that for any income on which people would pay Labour’s 10p tax rate, which it previously abolished, they pay a 0% tax rate under this Government.

Stephen Doughty: Is the Minister still a member of the Free Enterprise Group of Conservative MPs and does he agree with that group and the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) that VAT could be increased to 15% on food and children’s clothes, which are currently zero-rated? How would that help with the cost of living crisis for my constituents?

Sajid Javid: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is so interested in tax, because he will be sure to welcome the news that 38,000 people in his constituency have had an income tax cut and 4,500 have been taken out of income tax altogether.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am grateful to the Opposition for pointing out earlier that before the election the Minister worked for a bank that the British Government did not need to bail out, whereas the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury ran the campaign of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear at the Dispatch Box only last Wednesday that he did not agree with putting VAT on children’s clothes and food?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend makes a good point. [Hon. Members: “Answer the question!”] The Prime Minister answered it. The Government have absolutely no plans to increase VAT.

Kwasi Kwarteng: This proposal has been ripped out of context and completely distorted by the Daily Mirror and some of Labour’s other friends in the media. Let me be clear: this proposal was designed as a tax simplification measure that would cut the VAT rate and allow the savings to be targeted at people who really needed the money. It was a complex proposal whose details, I am afraid, got lost in the Labour spin machine.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend has made his point well, and I will not dwell on it further, in the interests of time.
	We have also frozen fuel duty. Petrol is now 13p per litre lower than under Labour’s plans. Each time the average motorist fills up their car, they are saving £7 because we have refused to implement Labour’s fuel duty escalator. We are also helping local authorities to freeze council tax, and our tax-free child care plan will mean savings for parents of up to £1,200 per child.

Alun Cairns: rose—

David Rutley: rose—

Sajid Javid: I give way to my hon. Friend for Wales first.

Hon. Members: For Wales? [Laughter.]

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way.—[Laughter.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a brief intervention, and he must be heard.

Alun Cairns: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about council tax, highlighting the freezing of council tax here in England. Sadly, in Labour-run Wales, council tax has risen by nearly 9% over recent years, in the same time as it has been nearly frozen here. Will he join me in calling on the Labour Front-Bench team to pressure their colleagues in Cardiff Bay to freeze council tax for my constituents in the same way that he is doing for constituents in England?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend has made his point very well, and the shadow Front-Bench team will have heard it. If they really cared about citizens in Wales, they would pressure their Government in Wales to take action on council tax.
	We are also making it easier for hard-working people to put some of their savings towards buying their own home. Our Help to Buy mortgage guarantee and equity loans are making home ownership a real possibility for aspiring people. Just one month since its launch, more than 2,000 people have put in offers for homes under the mortgage guarantee scheme. More than three quarters of the applicants were first-time buyers, many of them in their early 30s. Since the launch of the equity loan scheme in April, 92% of the 5,000 new homes built have been bought by first-time buyers. This is how we are helping to raise living standards: we create a business environment in which more people can go to work every day; we create a tax environment in which people can keep more of the money they earn every month; and we work with the banks so that every year more people can secure the dream of their own home.
	Our plans are improving living standards, but what is the Labour party’s solution? I am sure it will tell the public that the only way is up—and they would be right: under Labour, taxes would go up; mortgage rates would go up; inflation would go up; and unemployment would go up. That is what economic failure looks like.
	As I said at the outset, the shadow Minister needs to give the British public more credit. They are a lot smarter than he realises. They recognise that it was the Labour party that got the country into this mess, and that it will take time and difficult decisions to clear up that mess. We, the coalition Govt, have put our faith in the British public, and because of their hard work over the past three and a half years, jobs are being created at a record rate, the economy is growing faster than in any other developed country, and as Governor Carney said just last week, the recovery has finally taken hold. There was never going to be a magical short-term fix, but our sensible, sustainable economic strategy will raise living standards, so let us not lose ground on the progress we have made; let us not allow Labour to take Britain back towards economic ruin. I beg the House to oppose this motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the next speaker, the House will be aware of the high demand for time to speak and the lack of supply of it before we reach the end of the debate. I therefore impose with immediate effect a limit of eight minutes on speeches from Back Benchers.

Yvonne Fovargue: No subject impacts more on my constituents than the cost of living. Wages are dropping—in the north-west by 7.8%, a loss in
	spending power of nearly £1,700 a year—while more people are being given part-time hours or zero-hours contracts. That is not their choice, yet food and fuel prices continue to rise.
	People in my Makerfield constituency are “doing the right thing”: they are working or looking for work. For those looking for work, a quick glance at the universal jobmatch site will superficially show that many jobs are available after searching for retail jobs in Wigan. Let us look a bit deeper at these “jobs”, however. In the three pages I checked at random, 67 of the 75 jobs available were for self-employed catalogue distributors—jobs that the site stated it had been assured “may” enable people to earn a wage equivalent to the national minimum wage. Really? How many people have tried these jobs, paid up front for their catalogues—about £150—and found that they consistently earned the national minimum wage after paying all their contributions? It certainly does not include the people who have been to my surgeries after trying these non-jobs and finding that they could make very little—not even enough to heat and eat.
	Domestic energy bills have risen by an eye-watering average of 37% over the last three years. In 2012-13, citizens advice bureaux received 92,000 inquiries about fuel debt alone, while Which? estimates that flaws in the market have left consumers paying £3.9 billion over the odds since 2010. We intend to stand up for consumers in this failing market and break the stranglehold of the big six. What have this Government proposed? Nothing. It is no wonder that citizens advice bureaux saw a 78% increase in the number of people having to use food banks last year. Many of those people were in work, yet were unable to pay their bills and could not afford to eat.

Brooks Newmark: As the hon. Lady has mentioned jobs, I thought that it would be useful to give her a little information and a few facts. Is she aware that unemployment in her constituency has fallen by 26% in the past year, and that youth unemployment has fallen by 40%?

Yvonne Fovargue: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the unemployment figures in my constituency. I recently received an e-mail from the Audit Office telling me that the figures were not reliable because the constituency was a pilot area and people were coming off the register.
	Admitting that you cannot feed your family is not easy or comfortable. For many people, going to a food bank is a last resort and a source of shame, although it is not their fault but is due to an accumulation of Tory-led policies that are punishing, not rewarding, hard-working people.
	I would not be doing justice to my constituency postbag, or to the people who attend my surgeries, if I did not mention the economically unsound bedroom tax. As I have often said before, in Wigan we have a shortage of one and two-bedroom properties and a surplus of three-bedroom properties. People are being forced either to move to the more expensive private rented sector, uprooting their families and incurring further expense, or to pay the difference. Given that 4,200 people in my constituency are affected by reductions
	in housing benefit ranging from £517 to £1,273, it is no surprise that in October, 2,500 people contacted Wigan and Leigh Housing about rent arrears and debt. That represents an increase of 50% in the last three months.
	The bedroom tax means yet another cut in the available income of many of my constituents, forcing them to make stark choices about how they spend their money. Far from being a case of what luxury item they must do without, it is a case of “Can we afford to have the heating on, or should we shiver and buy food—and what about that new pair of school shoes? Heaven forbid that the washing machine or the fridge should break down!” There is certainly no money to save for a rainy day. In fact, many of my constituents are already swamped and drowning in debt.
	No wonder the payday lenders, the home credit providers, the log book loan companies and the rest are proliferating. According to a recent report, 48% of people who go to payday lenders are female, and the majority of females have borrowed for everyday necessities. They have borrowed to buy food for the family, or to pay the heating bills. Capping the cost of credit constitutes a welcome recognition that these companies are making profit from despair, but there is much more to be done. The root cause of rising prices and low incomes needs to be addressed if people are to be saved from being dragged into a spiral of debt.
	The people whom I represent are hard-working people who want the best for their families and who are doing the right thing, but they are being let down by this Tory-led Government in so many ways. Every time they go to the supermarket, every time they receive a fuel bill, and every time they turn on the television or walk down the high street and see more advertisements for payday lenders, they are reminded of the Government’s failure to address the issue that is most important to them: the cost of living.

Robert Halfon: Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the first time I have spoken in front of you, and it is an honour to do so.
	I am delighted that the Labour party has initiated this debate. I say to Labour Members “Bring it on!” I am glad that they have at last woken up to the cost-of-living crisis. While many of us were going on about it for a number of years, they were talking about predistributions or other “chattering classes” subjects that no one understood. While we were cutting and freezing fuel duty, cutting taxes and raising thresholds for lower earners, and increasing taxes for the rich by, for instance, increasing capital gains tax, they were voting against all those measures. They created a handout society, whereas we want to create a “hand back” society, and to give people back their own money through lower taxes. They created a society of dependency: a society of high tax, high debt and high borrowing.

David Rutley: My hon. Friend is making a very passionate speech. I know that he feels strongly about these matters, and has campaigned strongly on them in the past. Does he agree that, although our hon. Friend the Financial Secretary made an outstanding speech, what was omitted from it was a reference to the importance
	of the employment allowances that will allow a first-time employer to take on a new employee, thus helping even more people into the workplace?

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is another example of why we are the party of small business. Labour showed during its years in office that it was, as Peter Mandelson said, the party of the filthy rich and of big business, sucking up to bankers in the City—Fred the Shred, Flowers and all those kinds of people.
	The main elements of the cost of living are jobs, pay and energy. Let us look at the Labour Government’s record. They scrapped the 10p rate of tax under Gordon Brown in 2008. They talk about wages, but median wages stopped rising in 2003, in times of plenty, and hourly pay rose at only a quarter of the rate of economic growth. They increased fuel duty 12 times while in office, and the cost of bus travel increased by 59%. Council tax increased by 67%, and energy bills doubled. That is the record of the Labour party, which says that it wants to help with the cost of living. Sadly, it has nothing to show for it at all.
	Energy and fuel prices are among the key indicators of the cost of living. As we have heard from the Minister, this Government have cut fuel duty and said that they will freeze it for the lifetime of this Parliament—an historic move. Of course, I would like the Government to do more and to cut fuel duty further, and I hope that when economic conditions allow, that will be the No. 1 tax cut. We need to continue to help hard-pressed motorists.
	On energy, let us remember that there were about 17 energy companies under Labour; now, there are only six. Labour decreased competition, but we are doing things to increase it. I believe that the Government should do more on VAT, particularly through renegotiating our VAT rates with the European Union. They should also consider imposing windfall taxes—de facto fines—on some of the energy companies and passing the money back to the consumer. They should also cut Labour’s green taxes, which make up 17% of the average energy bill.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I understand that Labour intends to make energy its focus in the forthcoming EU elections. I intervened on the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), but he declined to answer my question. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should look not only at the six energy companies but at how we make energy in this country? We now need to import it, and we are over-reliant on expensive energy imports because the previous Government failed to replace the nuclear fleet in time. They did nothing during their 13 years, and that energy offering went down from 25% to 15%. That is why we now have to pay more for expensive oil and gas from abroad.

Robert Halfon: As always, my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. It is funny how we hear in the media that energy prices fell under the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), because they actually doubled during Labour’s time in office.
	There were 2.5 million people, including 1 million young people, unemployed when Labour left office. That did not happen over 18 months solely as a result of
	the recession; it was happening even in times of plenty. Under this Government, youth unemployment in my constituency has gone down by 7.6%, long-term unemployment by 4.3% and overall unemployment by 4.4% over the past 12 months. This is the Government who are helping with the cost of living and helping people to get back into work. I met a chap who was helping me with my car at Halfords, and he told me that he was going to vote Conservative for the first time in his life. When I asked him why, he said it was because the Conservatives helped people who work. That is what this party is all about. We are the party of hard-working people. We are the party that helps people with the cost of living.
	Pay and taxes are another indicator of the cost of living. There are 3,749 people in my constituency who have been taken out of tax altogether. They are on low earnings. A total of 36,861 lower earners have had a tax cut. I want the Government to do more, however. I want them to raise the threshold at which people pay national insurance, because that would make a huge difference. Let us take people on low earnings out of all tax altogether, not just out of income tax. Nevertheless, the Government have made huge progress, which has been opposed massively and has been voted against by the Labour party. We have to remind our constituents that Labour voted against people on lower earnings getting lower taxes. As I said, median wages stopped rising in 2003, so the previous Government’s record on wages is nothing to shout about. We need to improve the minimum wage; we should have a regional minimum wage top-up, on top of the national minimum wage. We need to reform national insurance as I have described, but at least this Government have started doing the things that are helping to address the cost of living most; we have taken action on energy, jobs and national insurance.
	A thing that gets my goat is that the Labour party claims to have the monopoly on compassion. As my constituents found out, the reality is that Labour had a monopoly on failure—on the cost of living, on taxes and on the economy. Through our history, the Conservative party has always been on the side of hard-working people; we have always helped lower earners. Despite the very difficult economic conditions that the Labour party left us, this Government have done everything possible. The Conservatives do not have a monopoly on compassion, but we are the party of aspiration. We give people ladders of opportunity; we give them skills and apprenticeships, the number of which has increased by more than 80% in my constituency. We are giving people jobs, and we are creating a new nation of property owners through the right to buy and the Help to Buy scheme. We recognise that the best way to help the poor and lower earners is not through the dependency culture and welfare society so beloved of Labour Members, but by cutting taxes, cutting fuel duty, freezing council tax, restoring the link between pensions and earnings, and helping hard-working people.

Stewart Hosie: I wish to say a little about the motion before I start my speech proper. The motion is in two parts, the first of which describes the failure of the Conservative Government—I intend to say most about that—and the second calls for action
	to mitigate the cost of living crisis. Although the Scottish National party does not agree with the Labour party on the precise mechanism of its fuel price freeze—we would prefer to see a cut—the principle of taking action on fuel is important in tackling the cost of living, so we will certainly be able to support this tonight.
	I wish to start by discussing tax, because that clearly has as much of a bearing on people’s ability to cope with rising prices as do earnings or the prices themselves. The Government are right to try to take as many people on low and modest wages out of tax as possible. The saving of £595 a year for basic rate taxpayers through the change in the basic allowance from £6,500 in 2010 to £9,440 this year makes sense. However, a saving of £595 for basic rate taxpayers makes rather less sense when the same Government are embarked on a £40,000 tax give-away for millionaires.
	The people I really want to talk about are those in the middle, who are paying some of the heaviest price for the mistakes this Government have made. These people have seen the tax relief before they pay the 40% band fall from £37,500 in 2010 to £34,700 last year and to £32,000 this year. So for every £595 saved as a result of changes to the basic rate, they have had to shell out an extra £2,000 at 40p in the pound. That does not make people better off; it exacerbates the crisis faced by people, particularly hard-working people on middle incomes. I am not talking about the very poorest and I am certainly not talking about the very wealthy; I am discussing those on genuinely middle incomes. It means that this Government have taken the number of people paying 40% tax to a whopping 4.3 million; whereas barely 5% of taxpayers did so 25 years ago, the figure has rocketed and 16% of all taxpayers now pay a 40% tax rate—even a quarter of a century ago this was a band only for the rich. They are not paying that because they are wealthier or even because the economy has come out of the austerity period. Indeed, people feel poorer because they are poorer.
	Last year, the Office for Budget Responsibility changed its forecast—I think this contradicts what the Minister said—by reducing household disposable income every year from 2013 onwards in the forecast period. In the March economic and fiscal outlook, it marked down real disposable income again to be negative or zero every year until 2017. People will not simply be not wealthier but will feel the burden of higher costs and stagnating real disposable income year after year after year of this Government.
	It is no surprise that households should feel poorer given that since the Government came to power inflation has constantly exceeded targets, pay has been frozen and benefits have been cut. Even the calculation of pensions, notwithstanding the much-vaunted triple lock, has changed from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. People need to understand that the actions of this Chancellor have caused untold damage to, and put pressure on, families throughout the UK, and much of that is because, as the motion says, he has failed to meet any of the economic targets that he set himself.
	When the Government came to power in 2010, they told us that the current account deficit for this year would be a mere £40 billion. This year, in the Budget, the Chancellor told that it would be £84 billion, which is
	more than double the original figure. In 2010, the Chancellor told us that public sector net borrowing for this year would be barely £60 billion. This year, he told us that it was £108 billion, but when we add on the fiddled stuff with the pension funds, we find that it was actually £120 billion—again, more than double the figure.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it would have been a better plan to borrow more money to reduce those deficits?

Stewart Hosie: I am suggesting that to try to remove the structural deficit and fail over a fixed time scale, taking no cognisance of external shocks, was a stupid thing to do and a daft economic and political decision, which the Government were warned about in advance. The warnings failed precisely because this Chancellor promised that national debt would peak at 85% of GDP on the treaty calculation, or at £1.162 trillion on the normal calculation. However, we were then told this year that it would not peak until 2015-16 at over 100% of GDP on the treaty calculation, or at more than £1.5 trillion on the normal calculation.

Tobias Ellwood: There is a comparison here with what those on the Labour Front Bench are saying. The hon. Gentleman said his speech was in two halves, but his argument is in two halves. He has just said that he is upset that the Government are taxing people too much, and now he is complaining that targets have not been met. Will he at least join me in welcoming the IMF’s upgraded forecast, which suggests that for this year growth will move from 0.9% to 1.4%, and next year from 1.5% to 1.9%? That must be welcome news.

Stewart Hosie: I always welcome growth in the economy, but the error that the hon. Gentleman and his Government have made is that by increasing tax and cutting to the extent that they have—the ratio of cuts to tax increases is four to one—they will have sucked out of the economy by 2016-17 roughly £155 billion a year. That is the equivalent of sucking 7.5% of GDP in terms of consumption out of the economy.

Kwasi Kwarteng: rose—

Stewart Hosie: I will not give way, because we only get two minutes’ stoppage time, and I have had my two minutes.
	This Government are also borrowing more and we are all paying the cost of failure. The Government’s main failure is on the fiscal rules they set themselves: that the structural current account deficit should be in balance in the final year of a future five-year programme—it will not be; and that debt should be falling as a share of GDP by the end of that period—it is not. Both objectives, were, and remain, highly dependent on GDP growth, which, as we have noted in previous Budgets, is massively dependent, at least according to the OBR, on extraordinary unmet and unmeetable levels of business investment. Let us remember that in 2010 the Government suggested, with a straight face, that business investment would have to grow between 8% and 11% a year between 2011 and 2015. By the time of the OBR fiscal outlook in November 2011, growth in business investment had turned negative again and the forecast had to be changed to show future projections of growth of up to 12%.
	The Chancellor was at it again this year. Having failed to get the growth in business investment we needed, he is now suggesting growth in business investment of 8.6% in three out of the next four years. I hope that that happens, but based on the evidence we have seen so far and the inability of the banks to take their share in providing credit and liquidity to businesses, I fear that is a forlorn hope.
	We have also been told—this point was mentioned earlier—that we will see the benefits to GDP growth of exports from the UK. In 2011, however, we had a deficit in trade in goods of £100 billion, which rose to £110 billion the following year. The deficit in trade in goods has been sitting at about £20 billion for every quarter of this year. The balance of goods and services was £23 billion in the red in 2011, and that figure worsened to £35 billion last year after four and a half years of depreciation in sterling. I would hope that at the very least the Government recognised that that part of the plan simply has not worked.
	I hope that the Government will be less stubborn about recognising where they have failed and that their optimistic Budgets have simply collapsed into dust when faced with the stark reality of austerity economics, which strips consumption out of the economy in the way I have described.

David Rutley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stewart Hosie: I will not.
	The pain of all that, as always, is felt by ordinary people, because, as I said earlier, we know this much from the Red Book: the Government intend to take £155 billion a year out of the economy in discretionary consolidation by 2016-17. They will do that for that year and every year, the equivalent of stripping consumption worth about 7.5% of GDP from the economy. Given that they have increased the ratio of discretionary consolidation to four to one—four cuts for every one tax rise—we can see where the Government’s priorities lie: not with jobs, not with growth, not with recovery and not with lifting the burden of the cost of living crisis off the backs of ordinary people, but with balancing the books on the backs of ordinary people in this country. If nothing else, they should recognise that it is not working. The pain is intense for communities throughout the UK and they should think again when we get to the autumn statement.

Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the debate, but have you have had any indication from Mr Speaker whether he intends to make any statement to the House about his speech to the Hansard Society this evening, in which he proposes to announce the establishment of a Speaker’s commission on digital democracy? Furthermore, briefing of the media on the speech and the announcement within it has been taking place for some four hours already without any announcement being made to the House.

Eleanor Laing: I am not aware of any such plans for any such statement and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a matter for the Chair.

Brooks Newmark: It is always a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), for whom I have great respect. Unfortunately, he can sometimes be a little dour and sees a glass of water as half empty rather than half full. I would rather talk about a glass of water being half full than half empty, so my speech might have a more positive tone than his.
	The Government have made huge strides to clean up the economic mess created in 2010. As the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, said on Wednesday 13 November:
	“Inflation is now as low as it has been since 2009. Jobs are being created at a rate of 60,000 per month. The economy is growing at its fastest pace in 6 years. For the first time in a long time you don’t have to be an optimist to see the glass as half full.”

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Brooks Newmark: No.
	“The recovery”,
	the Governor of the Bank of England says,
	“has finally taken hold.”
	If I may, I would like to begin by highlighting some of the economic achievements of this Government since 2010. The Government have cut the budget deficit by a third. The Government have helped the private sector create 1.4 million new jobs, offsetting any jobs lost in the public sector by 3:1. The Government have ensured that borrowing costs have fallen to record lows, saving money for taxpayers, businesses and families alike. The Government have helped bring inflation down to 2.2% as of October 2013. That is important because of the damaging effect that rising prices can have on the cost of living. The Government have helped bring back growth to the UK economy, with growth now projected to be 2.9% by year end 2014. The Government have ensured that the UK has more men and more women in work than ever before. The Government have seen the number of people claiming unemployment benefit fall at the fastest rate since 1997. Indeed, in my constituency of Braintree, both unemployment and youth unemployment are down 20% in the past year alone.

David Rutley: My hon. Friend sets out an impressive track record of achievement in the economy. Does he also recognise that our economic growth in the UK is projected to be the fastest in any country in Europe?

Brooks Newmark: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am just getting to that point.

David Rutley: Oh, I see.

Brooks Newmark: Furthermore, British manufacturing recently reported the strongest growth on record, exceeding that in every quarter since 1989, and Reuters recently reported that growth in UK services is the strongest in 16 years. The Government have indeed achieved much to rebalance our economy.
	Finally on economic performance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) just mentioned, according to the OECD the UK has the fastest growth
	in the developed world, beating the US, Germany and Japan. So by almost every benchmark, the UK has made huge strides in turning around the UK economy, and the Chancellor and his team at the Treasury should be congratulated on sticking with plan A and ensuring that the UK is on the path to recovery.
	The Government also have much to be proud of on the cost of living. The 2013 Budget raised the personal tax allowance to £10,000 from April 2014. That ensured a tax cut for 25 million people, with individuals paying an average of £705 less in income tax than they did in 2010. Indeed, 2.7 million people have been taken out of tax altogether, thereby reducing the cost of living.

Ian Paisley Jnr: rose—

Brooks Newmark: The Government have already reduced energy bills by £193 by removing the green levies imposed by the Leader of the Opposition and are ensuring that energy companies offer the lowest tariffs to customers, thereby reducing the cost of living.
	The Government have frozen fuel duty for the longest period in more than 20 years, with pump prices 13p per litre lower than when Labour was in power. Indeed, the average motorist will save at least £170, the average van driver will save £340 and the average haulier will save £5,200 each year as a result, thereby reducing the cost of living.

Sheila Gilmore: The hon. Gentleman and his party must be greatly relieved to be able to report an increase in GDP, given that in June 2010 the Office for Budget Responsibility was predicting that it would be 2.5%, 2.5% and 2.6% in the three years coming. So it must be a big relief to have at last turned the corner.

Brooks Newmark: Yes, it is a big relief, but as anyone in business knows—I had been in business for 20 years before I came to this place—turning around a business, particularly in an economy that was as messed up as that created by the Labour Government, takes a while. Progress is not necessarily linear. What we do have is growth returning. That is recognised by the Governor of the Bank of England, the OECD and the International Monetary Fund.

Tobias Ellwood: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Brooks Newmark: I cannot give way; I have allowed the two interventions I am permitted.
	Furthermore, the Government froze council tax in 2013-14 for the third year in a row. The combined effect of the Government’s actions means that council tax bills, which doubled under the previous Government, have fallen by 9.5% since 2010, thereby again reducing the cost of living. The Government have increased child care support for low-income working families on universal credit, thereby reducing the cost of living. In 2011, child tax credit increased by £225—the largest increase ever—and in April this year, it went up by 5.2%, a further increase of £135, thereby reducing the cost of living. The Government introduced the triple lock, which means that pensions increase every year by price inflation, earnings growth or 2.5%, whichever is highest. Over the
	course of their retirement, the average pensioner will be about £12,000 better off under the triple lock, which helps with the cost of living.
	Furthermore, the Government introduced the warm home discount scheme, which gives pensioners a £120 rebate on their electricity bill, thereby reducing the cost of living. The Government have increased cold weather payments permanently from a measly £8.50 under the previous Government to £25, thereby reducing the cost of living.
	In conclusion, the Government have much to be proud of. The Chancellor made some difficult decisions in 2010 to ensure that the country could have a long-term sustainable economic recovery. As the Governor of the Bank of England reiterated in the Treasury Committee yesterday, the economic recovery has finally taken hold. We should not jeopardise all this by returning to Labour’s tax and spend policies, which created the financial mess that we have finally begun to clear up. The Government must stick with their long-term economic plan, as that is the only sustainable way to raise living standards. I therefore oppose the motion.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), but rather than his being positive, I think that he looks at the world through extremely strong rose-tinted spectacles. The Government’s record is failing the country, and nowhere is that failure felt harder than the north-east, which is where my constituency of City of Durham is located.
	Last month, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that the north-east had the highest regional unemployment rate in 2013. It said that the unemployment rate in the region was the highest in the UK at 10.3% in the second quarter of 2013, compared with 7.8% for the UK. The employment rate stood at 66.5%, lower than the UK rate of 71.5% for the same period. Almost a fifth of children in the north-east lived in workless households in the second quarter of 2013. At 18.7%, that was the highest proportion in the regions, compared with an average of 13.6% for England.

Brooks Newmark: Given that the hon. Lady is discussing employment and unemployment I thought it would be useful to remind her that in the past year alone in her constituency, unemployment has dropped by 26% and youth unemployment has dropped by 29.5%.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his figures, because I looked at the drop in unemployment and the numbers for youth unemployment in Durham showed a reduction of 19 in the last quarter. Although we welcome any increase in employment, he must pay attention to the quality of jobs that have been created. In Durham, a lot of people have lost good, stable, well-paid jobs in the public sector, and have taken insecure, low-paid, zero-hours-contract jobs in the private sector, if any employment at all.
	As I was saying, the Government’s failure on living standards is impacting on people in the north-east. I shall go briefly through some of the issues that we are facing. With the current cost of living crisis, people are
	working longer hours for lower incomes, and despite being in work, many people find themselves in poverty. Government Members seem unable to grasp that.

Julie Elliott: As a fellow north-east MP, does my hon. Friend agree that for young people in particular, the often unsuitable and unstable employment that is out there if they manage to get a job—as she said, they are probably on zero-hours contracts—means that in many cases they have to do a variety of small jobs to make up some kind of income. That is not a long-term way to plan their future careers, is it?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We need to see much more action from the Government on securing decent employment and career paths for our young people, as we all want.

Guy Opperman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am sorry, but I will run out of time if I give way. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
	The north-east has the highest proportion of people paid below the living wage—32% of workers are paid less—and research published by the Resolution Foundation has further confirmed that the north-east was the region where workers were most likely to be trapped in low earnings. The Office for National Statistics said:
	“In April 2012, median gross weekly earnings for full-time adult employees in the North East were £455, joint lowest with Wales and lower than the UK median of £506.”
	So people in the area that I represent are having to contend with lower wages, but they are also having to deal with rising prices. They are being burdened with not only increasing energy costs, but increasing costs for child care, for example. Energy prices have angered people throughout the country and all we have heard from the Government is excuses for the actions of the big six. When npower recently announced an eye-watering rise in electricity costs of 9.3% and in gas of 11.1%, The Journal, our local newspaper, reported that Dorothy Bowman, a campaigner for elderly people from County Durham, said that the price hike would leave householders with a stark choice. She said:
	“They will have to choose food or heat, it will be too expensive for both. This is at the wrong time for people”.
	She went on to say that npower did not care at all
	“about their customers and the dire misery they are subjecting them to, they just care about their profits. If they were going to do this why not do it in spring, now people have no choice.”
	She said the elderly would suffer, but so would young families living on a tight budget. I think she makes the point very strongly indeed.
	In addition, The Journal reported on 25 October that an official at thinkmoney said:
	“Regionally, problems with utility bills appear most severe in Northern Ireland, London and the North East.”
	That is why we need Labour’s energy price freeze and long-term reforms to the energy market.

Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Roberta Blackman-Woods: If the hon. Gentleman is very brief.

Jim Shannon: As an example of how dire things are in the high street and the household, Citizens Advice reported that 92,000 people had made inquiries about fuel debt, 81,000 people had made inquiries about water debt, and that there had been a 77% increase in child care costs over 10 years and a 78% increase in the use of food banks. Surely that is the reality of the high street and what is happening at present.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point and I hope to be able to come to some of those issues myself.
	On child care, the cost of nursery places has risen by 30%—five times faster than pay for people on average wages. I opened a new nursery in my constituency a couple of weeks ago—Do Re Mi nursery—but without action from the Government many families will not able to take up places there. It is not good enough for Government Members to say that there is help for people and that there is universal credit. No one is on that at present and many are not getting any help with child care.
	As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, there are huge problems with debt. The charity StepChange in my constituency said that almost 2,000 people in the Durham area had been referred to it with debt problems from January to June this year. R3, the insolvency trade body in the north-east, found that almost a quarter of survey respondents were extremely worried or very worried about their debts, while 56% were worried about their credit card payments.
	For some time, Labour Members have been raising issues about payday lenders and the extortionate rates of interest they have been charging. We obviously welcome the Government’s announcement on this, but as yet there has been absolutely no information about what will be in place to help people who have already taken out loans that they are unable to pay back. That situation is seriously compounding the problems that many families are facing.
	Moreover, food poverty is increasing in Durham. The website of Durham food bank states:
	“Durham foodbank has now completed two years of distributing food to local people in crisis. In our first year we fed 3686 people, our second year total is now in excess of 10,600.”
	It thanks the army of volunteers who are helping it to meet this need, but makes the point, as I do, that that demonstrates a huge increase in the number of people requiring food banks. Indeed, the local citizens advice bureau has reported a 78% increase in the number of inquiries about the use of food banks. This flies in the face of the Government’s claims that they are turning the corner. Lots and lots of families in my constituency have a genuine cost of living crisis, and things are getting worse for them because of increasing prices and, at best, flatlining wages. They simply cannot afford to make ends meet.
	Labour is calling for the Government to take real action to make a difference to families in Durham and across the country. We want a list of measures to be included in the autumn statement, including an energy price freeze, an extension of free child care, action to boost long-term housing supply, and a compulsory jobs guarantee—real action that would help people who are struggling out there in our communities. The Government are standing by and doing nothing to tackle the serious
	pressures on families right across the country, and we cannot let them go on and on doing the same thing. We need real action from the Government to support hard-pressed families. I support the motion.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. We have had such debates on a number of occasions, but it is important that we have this one now, when the economy is growing. All the indicators from the IMF, the OECD and other estimable bodies suggest that the worst is over in the British economy and that we are encountering some sort of recovery.
	More important than recovery in itself is understanding how we got into this position in the first place. The economy will be a very important issue in the next election. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) criticise the Chancellor and the Government for not reducing the deficit fast enough. When I asked what his solution was to this conundrum—whether he wanted to borrow more—he failed to answer. I still do not know what his answer is; perhaps he will care to enlighten us in the course of my speech.
	It is true that the UK economy has faced a difficult few years given our reliance on financial services and, more importantly, the appalling fiscal legacy of the previous Labour Government. It was insane for them to borrow money in every fiscal year from 2001, even when the economy was growing. I have never heard of an economy growing at 3% while running a deficit of 3% of GDP. Not even Lord Keynes would have advocated such a policy. Yet we lived through a period in which we had year after year of deficit even when the economy was growing.

Alec Shelbrooke: Does my hon. Friend share my deep concern that the most shocking thing that has emerged during this debate is that the shadow Chief Secretary does not appear to know the difference between deficit and debt?

Kwasi Kwarteng: That is absolutely right. I was as shocked and appalled as my hon. Friend that, when I asked the shadow Chief Secretary what the absolute level of the British deficit is—it was a very simple, general knowledge-type question—he did not seem to know. I then asked him whether he knew what the deficit-to-GDP ratio is, but he flannelled away that supplementary question and did not even pay me the courtesy of answering it.
	We have to look very carefully at the legacy of the previous Labour Government, because it has a direct impact on living costs and this cost of living debate. People in Britain—people in my constituency and, I am sure, in other constituencies across the country—intuitively understand that after a period of excessive spending in which, to borrow a metaphor, the national credit card went way beyond its limit, it is necessary to have a period in which spending is reduced. Nearly everyone understands that and, as a consequence, any poll that Members may care to look at shows that the Government and coalition parties have a considerably better rating on the issue than that of the Labour party.

Stephen Doughty: What do the polls say about the attitude of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents to his proposals to put VAT at 15% on children’s clothes and food?

Kwasi Kwarteng: I have mentioned my specific proposal and not the Mickey Mouse, cartoon version offered by the Daily Mirror. [Interruption.] I am not sure which rag it was, but I will not return to that point.
	The cost of living debate cannot be conducted without reference to the actual economic conditions or the economic legacy of the previous Government. It is a sleight of hand—I admire Labour’s political skill in that regard—and dishonest not to recognise that the cost of living debate cannot be conducted without reference to the economy. It is also not very open handed or reasonable to suggest that the previous Government’s legacy and appalling record have nothing to do with the difficulties that families up and down this country face.

Ian Paisley Jnr: On the cost of living, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the further north we travel in this great nation of ours, the bigger the burden of debt and cost on individuals in society? Over the past four years in Northern Ireland, everything—from utility bills to transport costs—is up 30% and more for the average household. That is a dire burden on the community.

Kwasi Kwarteng: People in this country understand that any Government who came in after the 2010 election, amid the appalling wreckage of the economy bequeathed to us by the previous Government, would face a difficult proposition and have a difficult time. In fact, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), outlined a plan—the newspapers dubbed it the Darling plan—that advocated spending cuts and a 22% rate of VAT. As Members will know, I advocated a much lower rate. The Darling plan was an adult, mature recognition of the appalling legacies that his Government had given us. It recognised that we needed to reduce spending and that what was then dubbed austerity was absolutely necessary for this country’s financial future.
	Despite Labour’s worst predictions, the Government’s plan is now beginning to work. We have not heard anything about plan B for several months. We have not heard anyone say, “Too far, too fast.” One esteemed Labour economist said that unemployment would hit 5 million, but none of those dire predictions actually happened. Labour persists, however, in peddling the socialist, never-never land idea that borrowing more money will somehow reduce the deficit. That is absolutely insane. I understand why the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) is banging her head as a symbol of her frustration, because some of her colleagues’ ideas are remarkably foolish.

Stewart Hosie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kwasi Kwarteng: No, I will not. I tried to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, but he quite rightly wanted to use his full allocation of time.
	What do the Opposition actually propose? They have no plans on the economy. Their economic credibility is severely questioned by the British public. All their prophecies and predictions have proved to be completely false.
	They are now left with the notion that the Government have somehow failed and that the very difficult time through which we have passed is a direct consequence of Government policies, when it has in fact been the direct consequence of the Government trying to get us out of the mess bequeathed by the Opposition.
	Let us look at the Darling plan. When the Labour Chancellor was in government, he said that spending would have to be reduced, which is exactly what this Government have done and achieved. As I have mentioned, under the Darling plan the VAT rate would be 22%. It is lower than that, so we have managed to achieve a degree of fiscal consolidation without some of the punitive tax rates suggested by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West.
	All of this debate has a direct bearing on living standards and the difficulties that people are facing. Once again, under difficult fiscal constraints, this Government have managed to lift hundreds of thousands of people out of tax altogether. They have raised the personal allowance, which is a significant achievement in a time of relative austerity when we have not had the largesse that the previous Government enjoyed and abused. It is absolutely to the Government’s credit that we have managed to raise the personal allowance—taking people out of tax—which has alleviated living conditions and made them slightly easier for many of the poorest in this country.
	Before I finish, I want to mention some of the gimmicks and wheezes that the Labour party has offered as serious policies. Government giveaways will still have to be paid for by the taxpayer. It is madness to try to freeze energy prices. Anyone who has looked at the economic history of this country knows that the price and wage controls of the 1960s and 1970s completely failed. We have abandoned such policies. Opposition Members will remember that beer duty was frozen in the 1960s for two years, and in the third year the price of beer went up by 41%. That is no way to conduct an economic policy.

Iain McKenzie: It has become evident from today’s debate that the Government are incapable of making any real changes to improve the cost of living for our hard-pressed families up and down the country. Nothing seems to be changing for those people who, as they have told me, see the Government putting the wrong people first. The only growth people have seen on the high street has been in prices and in pawnbrokers, payday loans, cash-for-gold companies and betting shops.
	As has been said, prices are still going up faster than wages. That has been compounded by the fact that many of my constituents have experienced wage freezes over the past couple of years and/or have been moved to reduced hours or part-time working.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman mentioned payday loans, which are a scourge if ever there was one. Some 33% of people borrowing payday loans do so just to pay their basic household bills—just to live and get through the day—while 44% are borrowing to pay for their gas and electricity. Is that an indication of our society?

Iain McKenzie: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is spot on about that indicator of what is happening in society. I will develop that theme further.
	Last April’s increase in the personal allowance does not make up for what families have already lost through tax and benefit changes. The cost of living is rising four times faster than earnings, on the back of a fall in real wages since this Chancellor took office. People are getting worse off, and the cost of living crisis is hitting hard-working families up and down this country. Families in Britain have taken a pay cut of £1,200 a year.
	What do families face week in, week out as they struggle to overcome the cost of living crisis? I will give some examples to highlight the severity of the squeeze on living standards. On the basic weekly shop for food and clothing at the supermarket, families are seeing less go into the shopping trolley and more go into the till. Some families no longer do such a one-stop shop, but flit from supermarket to supermarket to cash in on the bargains and stretch their pound even further. There are growing crowds around the mark-down shelves, buying food that must be consumed that day. That is surely an indication that people are living from hand to mouth. Citizens Advice has also produced evidence on food shopping:
	“On average UK households purchased 4.2 per cent less food in 2011 than in 2007 while spending 12 per cent more.”
	Families are facing record energy bills, while energy companies are enjoying huge profits. It is only Labour that is committed to freezing prices, not freezing families. At my surgery last week, many constituents came to me with their power bills, concerned about how they would pay them. That is at the start of winter. Goodness only knows how they will pay their bills at the end of winter. Again, I will quote Citizens Advice:
	“Over the last three years the average domestic dual fuel energy bill has increased by 37 per cent.”
	That is a massive hit on family budgets.
	Fuel prices are about 5 or 6p higher in Inverclyde than just 20 miles away. The pricing in my neck of the woods is unbelievable. There are different prices even within the boundaries of the town. The prices for one company vary from one end of the town to the other. The higher prices are predominantly in the areas where people can least manage the rising price of fuel.
	A big indicator of the cost of living crisis is the increase in the number of people who are turning up at the doors of food banks. It is a national disgrace that there is food poverty in one of the world’s largest economies. In Britain today, some 13 million people live below the poverty line. The number of Scottish families that attend food banks has risen by 100%. In my constituency of Inverclyde, the number of people using food banks has increased dramatically and shows no sign of falling. The fact that 50% of those who go to food banks are in work is shocking.
	What can I say about the impact of the welfare changes on my community? They have taken some £2 million out of the local economy. That money was spent on essentials such as food and clothing. That is having an impact not only on the families affected, but on high streets and shops because it threatens the survival of small businesses.
	Where will the squeeze on living standards lead? It leads either in the direction of debt or towards desperate acts, of which I see more and more. In Inverclyde, one recent act—a metal theft, which we see up and down the country—sums up the desperation of families to get
	money to subsidise their income. Some copper cabling, worth a mere £30, was stolen from a substation in my constituency, plunging dozens of homes into darkness, leaving many people without heating and causing one home to burn to the ground—all that for £30! It was a senseless act, but for what reason? Struggling—that is why I believe that crime took place and put in danger not only the lives of those who perpetrated it, but those of the people living on that estate. Only the kind-heartedness and community spirit of the people of Inverclyde will ensure that the family who have lost their home and possessions will have a Christmas and a roof over their heads.
	I know that many other Members wish to contribute to the debate, so I will conclude by saying that times are hard, living standards are definitely falling, and the Government’s economics are failing.

Christopher Pincher: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and to speak in this debate. It gives me an opportunity to relate to the House the good news happening in Tamworth, which is not some leafy suburb but a no-nonsense, hard-working, gritty, midlands town. In Tamworth in the past 12 months, unemployment has fallen by 31%, youth unemployment by 35%, and long-term unemployment by nearly 40%.
	Last month I held a jobs fair at which there were more jobs than jobseekers. There were some 400 jobs, including apprenticeships at Jaguar Land Rover and Spline Gauges, 50 jobs at Marston’s brewery, and jobs at Toys R Us. That demonstrates in a small but significant way how we have turned a corner and are creating real, sustainable jobs and growth for our constituents. It is our job to do that, and a story that Labour Members do not like to tell, just as they do not like to be reminded of their last miserable years in government, when in my town jobs were lost across the board. One could walk down the Glascote road and see repossession notices in window after window, as banks foreclosed on people’s homes. People were not just losing their jobs under Labour, they were losing their homes as well. We will not listen to lectures from Opposition Members when we remember the grisly legacy of Labour’s years, and we will not let them forget it either.

Alec Shelbrooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that in order to receive a lecture, someone actually has to have some information given to them?

Christopher Pincher: My hon. Friend is, as ever, apposite in his point, and we look forward to hearing Labour’s plan—plan A, plan B, plan Z? One day perhaps we will hear what it might be.
	We have heard something from the Leader of the Opposition, whose latest stunt is to announce an energy price freeze. We should beware geeks bearing gifts, because that announcement is pretty hollow for three reasons. First, if a price freeze is imposed, companies will simply hike their prices before the freeze and afterwards, and people will be paying artificially high energy prices. That is what Professor Dieter Helm says, as well as Adam Scorer from Consumer Focus. Even the hon.
	Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) has raised that concern. He is a Labour member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee and says that Labour’s plans for an energy freeze are somewhat sketchy.
	The second reason a freeze will not work is that rather than break up the big six oligopoly, it will entrench it. Stephen Fitzpatrick of Ovo and the First Utility company—the company of choice for the Leader of the Opposition—say that a price freeze will make it more difficult for them to break into the market and operate, and that it will entrench the position of the big six, rather than break it up. The third reason the freeze will not work is that it will jeopardise £125 billion-worth of investment that we must make in short order in our energy infrastructure—£25 billion of that in the pipes and pylons that keep our lights switched on.

Angie Bray: Is there not a fourth problem? It would be a brave Government indeed who called an end to the so-called 20-month freeze precisely because, as they would know, prices would be likely to increase. Therefore, the chances are that prices would be frozen at that level.

Christopher Pincher: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I suspect that, were we, heaven forfend, to have a Labour Government, they would show a great deal of pusillanimity in the face of the energy companies—the big six that they created. We need to ensure that we get that infrastructure funding flowing from private enterprise. Unless we get that money from the private sector, the poor old taxpayer must foot the bill.
	We do not need an artificial, high price freeze in future; we need price cuts now. That is what will help our constituents, and that is what they want. That is what the Energy Bill will deliver. We need to make it easier for people to switch: 24-hour switching could save people up to £200 on their energy bills. We need to get rid of the array of tariffs—under Labour, there were more than 400—and put people on the lowest tariff available. That could save people £158. If we also roll back those green levies and do not impose the £125 carbon tax that Labour tried to impose through the Energy Bill in the other place just two weeks ago, that will save our constituents money. That is real help for real people now, not the conjuring trick that the Leader of the Opposition, like some street magician, wants to undertake.
	We will remember at all times and in all circumstances that the Labour Government, like a bunch of boy racers behind the political wheel, wrapped our economy around a lamppost. Never, ever will we let it happen again.

Geraint Davies: Today at Prime Minister’s Question Time, I accused the Prime Minister, in essence, of knowingly moving the economy forward in a way that means that real wages continually fall and house prices go up. He knows as well as all of us that we are moving towards the rocks of rising interest rates and a sub-prime debt crisis. He is a man looking to the future, walking backwards.
	There is a question over whether the Prime Minister is doing that completely unwittingly—is he sleepwalking towards disaster or knowingly walking towards it? I put it to the House that he is knowingly doing so. He is
	inflating the housing market when he knows that people cannot afford higher interest rates. He is willing to take those risks in the knowledge that, if and when the Labour party takes office, there will be a sub-prime debt disaster, and he will be able to say, “It is old Labour messing things up.” He is willing to pay that price, because he believes that the feel-good factor from inflated house prices in London and the south-east—his core area—where he is investing 80% of Britain’s new infrastructure to buoy his vote, will be enough, alongside the media spin, to get him back into power. I put it to the House that it will not be enough, and that we should be alerting the British public to it and to what we should do about it.
	The Minister loosely referred to the funding for lending scheme used by our banks, but he would not take an intervention from me. The scheme provides easy lending, underpinned by the Bank of England. Lending to households for mortgages is now at the 2008 level, but lending to business is 32% lower than it was in 2008. What does that mean? It means that British money is not investing in productivity and growth for jobs, which means that wages are not growing and will not be strong enough to sustain the cost of higher house prices when interest rates go up.
	Interest rates will go up. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, has clearly said that, when unemployment goes down to 7%, interest rates can be let free. That is great, is it not? Obviously, unemployment going down must be good—I can see Government Members nodding their heads—but, if overall production has not grown, average productivity will have gone down. Since 2010, productivity, in the main, has been flatlining and there is no growth in the economy. There is growth in the number of people in work because we are sharing the production around, which is why real wages are falling. We do not have the investment in training and in research and development. On investment as a proportion of GDP, we are 159th in the world. On R and D investment, we are at the bottom of the developed world. We are a basket case and it is no surprise that our triple A rating was taken away.
	We hear the same old Tory story that we always hear: “Labour messed it up and we have made the recovery.” The reality is that GDP grew by 40% between 1997 and 2008. We then had the international financial disaster. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and President Obama stepped in with a fiscal stimulus to get us back to growth by 2010. Hey presto, the Tories arrived and announced that half a million people were going to be sacked, and people in the public sector stopped spending because they did not know when they were going to be sacked. So the Tories deflated consumer demand and growth has been flatlining ever since.
	What has happened to our debt-to-GDP ratio? It has gone up from 55% to 75%, and will go up to 85% by 2015, because GDP has been flatlining. Debt to GDP has gone up, because debt has gone up as well. This Government have borrowed more in three and a half years than the Labour Government borrowed in 13 years. The clowns spin the story again and again in this Chamber and in the media, and the marketing campaign is working well. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are knowingly sending us down the track towards more sub-prime debt. They hope the propaganda war will be won if Labour gets in and it blows up in its face.
	This Government, and any future Labour Government, should, through the Bank of England, change the funding for lending scheme so that it focuses on business investment, not mortgage investment. Prior to the onset of the funding for lending scheme in July 2012, the mortgage market had already recovered, so we do not need the money that is going in. The scheme means that if you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were a bank, for every pound you lent to SMEs, you would have another £10 to lend elsewhere. At the moment that is going to mortgages, not SMEs. That will be changed to a ratio of 5:1. If that were to be rebalanced, the Bank of England and the Government could finance business loans—existing loans, as well as future loans—and give more money to SMEs. The financial markets are already servicing the rest of it. In addition, we have the Help to Buy scheme. All the money is therefore being channelled into a fixed stock of houses and prices will go through the roof. Would it not be better to invest in business and construction? That would increase the number of houses, reduce prices and create work.
	We want a rational and sustainable economic strategy. Instead, we have a political trick that is sending us towards the abyss and the Government do not seem to care. They say that everything is recovering, but the essence of the debate is that everybody out there looks in their pockets and in their cupboards and knows that they are worse off. That will continue unless something is done to invest in business, productivity and growth.

Simon Hart: If the Help to Buy scheme is such an unattractive prospect, why are the Labour Administration in Cardiff adopting it?

Geraint Davies: I am not quite with the hon. Gentleman. I do not know if my analysis is lost on Conservative Members who are just repeating things without understanding the economic debate, but I am saying that we should work with Mark Carney to rebalance the funding for lending scheme in favour of business, instead of supporting the mortgage market which is already on track. That would take some of the heat out of the housing market, and help to build more houses, grow productivity, increase wages and create sustainable growth. That has nothing to do with what is happening in Cardiff.
	A few references have been made to Wales, and I might as well respond to them, now that we have heard another Tory intervention. The reality is that 80% of all infrastructure investment in the UK goes to London and the south-east. Wales is one of the poorest areas of the United Kingdom; a quarter of the people live in poverty, the majority of them in work. The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) will know, because he is a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, that what is being put in place in Wales, the future jobs fund and so on, works much more effectively than the UK Government’s Work programme. Wales is doing its best in difficult times, but the Government will not even reduce the tolls on the Severn bridge to provide further stimulus, because they do not care. All they care about is sustaining their own backyard. We have this weakened economy when there are enormous opportunities to make us strong. It is a disgrace.
	I will continue to make those points about the Government, because it is becoming ever clearer that they are knowingly heading towards a sub-prime debt crisis. They should be ashamed.

Guy Opperman: The cost of living is a legitimate subject for debate. I was interested to hear Ross Smith of the North East chamber of commerce comment on the solution:
	“My answer to this is ‘it’s skills, stupid’—alas that doesn’t fit with easy election messages or election cycles.”
	To be fair, that was a tweet, playing on Bill Clinton’s famous line in 1992 that, “It’s the economy, stupid”, so I asked Ross to expand on it yesterday as part of my consultation in preparation for this speech. He said that
	“the most important factor in raising living standards in the long term is to increase skill levels so that people can play a more productive part in a stronger economy and be rewarded accordingly.”
	I could not agree more.
	To that end, we must look at apprenticeships, which surely can play a key part in any skills regeneration. The north-east is clearly leading the way. The number of apprenticeship starts in the north-east has increased by 11% since 2010-11, to 38,340. That was up from 18,510 in 2009-10 and 13,500 in 2005-06. In other words, it has trebled since the Blair Government. In my constituency, the number of apprenticeship programme starts has gone from 430 in 2009-10 to 690 in 2012-13.
	Of course, it is not just about the number of apprenticeships; it is also about their quality. To that end, I am delighted that the Government have decided that one of the skills pilots will be in the north-east. In fact, it was the North East local enterprise partnership and the Adonis review that suggested the skills pilots that will go ahead. It is to be joined by the Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire LEP and the West of England LEP. It is a chance for businesses to engage with their skills and apprenticeship needs so that there is a focus on the particular parts of the economy where growth in jobs is needed in the long term.
	There is ample evidence of the successes, whether the opening of the engineering academy in Hexham by Egger, with 40 jobs created, the work done by Nissan, the 38 new jobs in the IT sector, the new apprenticeship jobs in Accenture, whose managing director came to see me yesterday, or the work done by Siemens, particularly in relation to the university technical college in Durham. I strongly hope that the LEP will carry that forward in such a way that the Adonis report will have a true impact.
	One cannot address the economy, certainly in my region, which has 2.4 million people, without looking at the Adonis report. No other region in the country has addressed its strengths and weaknesses as the north-east has with that report. It was business led, written by experts, apolitical, hard hitting and realistic. It assessed both the strengths of the local area and the weaknesses. It celebrated assets but acknowledged that there have been successive failures, by successive Governments, to improve job numbers, address skills deficits, increase university starts and generally grow the economy. I am profoundly grateful to all its authors.
	At the report’s heart lay a desire for more and better jobs, as it identified the crucial lack of private sector employment. However, as it states:
	“More jobs alone will not re-balance the economy. The North East needs higher skilled and higher paid jobs to produce an economy which matches others and provides the quality of opportunities that its residents and young people need to prosper.”
	How do we proceed to that? We must support the necessary investment in apprenticeships, build on the skills pilots and consider the recommendations in the Adonis report—I will not repeat its 24 pages, Madam Deputy Speaker, despite the Irn-Bru you saw me have at the Scotland Better Together event earlier. The seven local authorities must be allowed to go forward. They are coming together and driving forward with a regional voice to match the likes of Manchester who have led the way so well in these matters in the past.
	I cannot finish without addressing the motion. On the proposed energy price freeze, I entirely endorse the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) that one should always be wary of geeks bearing gifts. On the need for long-term housing supply, I accept that there is that need, but it is a shame that my two Labour authorities are keen to build on the green belt, rather than on the other available sites. On action for young people, I would certainly support such action, but it is this Government who have trebled the number of apprenticeships and set up the welcome north-east skills pilot. I find it very easy, therefore, to reject the motion.

Graham Jones: The hon. Gentleman referred a moment ago to brownfield sites in urban areas, but does he accept that not every brownfield site is economically viable, and is he aware of his local authority’s assessment of brownfield sites and their economic viability? Perhaps he could give some figures on the viability of the sites in that area.

Guy Opperman: I could speak for an hour, and have done so on several previous occasions in the House, on Labour-run Northumberland county council’s failure to provide brownfield sites and its proposal to build on the green belt, whether around Ponteland, Hexham or other sites in Northumberland. Alternatively, there is Newcastle—again a Labour council—which is proposing massive building on green-belt land. We campaigned extensively against the building of more than 10,000 houses on that land.

Graham Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that building on greenfield sites is sometime cheaper and so provides for affordable accommodation, and that brownfield sites, particularly contaminated brownfield sites, can be comparatively very expensive?

Guy Opperman: I have no doubt that building on contaminated brownfield sites can be difficult, but in my constituency, for example, the police authority has sold the site of a former police station that could be built on perfectly properly. For 20 years, taxpayers—that includes the hon. Gentleman and me—paid more than £1 million to keep the former Stannington hospital site secure, yet nothing was built on it. We now have former government sites being built on and providing homes, but of course that is not green belt. He was keen to make his point about brownfield sites, but he also spoke
	about greenfield sites. We have huge difficulties in the north-east with investment in and building on greenbelt sites by local authorities.
	I have gone on too long and been distracted—

Catherine McKinnell: indicated assent.

Guy Opperman: The Opposition spokesperson chunters from a sedentary position. On jobs figures and the economy, she will doubtless be addressing the fact that in her constituency unemployment has fallen by 12.5% in the last year, that youth unemployment has fallen by 16.5% and that the number of apprenticeship has risen from 620 in 2009-10 to 1,170 according to the most recent statistics. That is real action to help people in the north-east.

Angie Bray: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Guy Opperman: I will not give way to my hon. Friend. I have great respect for her, but it would not be fair on those who have yet to speak.

Michael Meacher: The cost of living crisis has had a fairly good airing in this debate and has been poignantly described in some detail, so I intend to concentrate on the second part of the motion, which concerns the Government’s economic policy and, on the cost of living crisis, to ask the obvious question: was it all necessary? The Government’s answer, as provided by the Financial Secretary in a rather frivolous and distinctly provocative knockabout, was, predictably, yes. He simply repeated the well-worn Tory mantra that we all know: Labour left behind a huge economic mess; there was no other way to deal with it other than through massive cuts in public expenditure; we were “all in it together”; and now the Chancellor’s policies have been vindicated as it has all come right. All four of those statements are flat wrong.

Graham Jones: rose—

Michael Meacher: I would prefer to respond to those four statements before giving way to my hon. Friend.
	First, Labour did not leave an economic mess. The budget deficit in 2007-08, just before the crash, was 2.6% of gross domestic product—one of the lowest in the OECD and about the same as Germany’s. It rose to 11.6% in 2010 only as a result of the bankers’ bail-out. I noted that the Financial Secretary did not even mention the banks today, so I was beginning to wonder whether he had even heard of the bankers’ bail-out. [Interruption.]I am prepared to give way at this point, before going on to answer in some detail.

Graham Jones: Perhaps the Financial Secretary did not mention the bail-out because he was working in financial services as a banker himself?

Michael Meacher: That may well have had something to do with it, but it happened also because the Tories decided to blank out the bankers’ bail-out and put the whole blame on the Labour party. For any objective economist or objective observer of any kind, that is obviously absurd.
	Secondly, there was another and much better way to deal with the budget deficit than through semi-permanent austerity. It is costing the country £19 billion a year to keep 2.5 million people unemployed. I simply say that it would have been far better to get these people off benefit and into work through public investment, so that they could earn and contribute to the Exchequer through taxes and national insurance contributions. I well know that the question will come, “How do we pay for that?”, so I shall answer it. This can still be done—and it could have been done three years ago—without any increase in public borrowing at all, despite the Chancellor’s continuous jibes to the contrary, by a further tranche of quantitative easing targeted not on the banks but directly on industry, or by instructing the publicly owned banks RBS and Lloyds to prioritise lending to industry, or by taxing the ultra-rich.

Alec Shelbrooke: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of the fact that it was his Government who did the deals with RBS, yet they did absolutely nothing in those deals to force the banks to do things that they had decided they did not want to do.

Michael Meacher: There has been a great deal of partisanship in this debate, and I am prepared to recognise that the problems did not start with the present Government. I agree that we should have taken a much tougher line with the banks before 2010, but let us concentrate on where we are now, because the country is in a very serious position.
	That brings me to the third point. We never were “all in it together”—quite the opposite, and to a stunning degree. In The Sunday Times rich list, the richest 1,000 of the UK’s citizens—a tiny 0.003% of the population—increased their wealth in the five years since the crash by a staggering £190 billion, while 90% of the population over exactly the same period have had to take a real-terms cut of about 9%, and their wages are still falling. So much for social solidarity! If that £190 billion were charged to capital gains tax, it could technically raise £53 billion. I do not think it would for a moment, but it could realistically raise roughly £30 billion to £35 billion—quite enough to generate 1 million to 1.5 million jobs within two or three years. That would be a far quicker way of reducing the budget deficit—which is supposed to be the aim of the exercise—than spending cuts could ever be.
	The Government’s fourth point is that we have a recovery. Well, we do have a recovery of sorts, but one that has been generated in exactly the wrong way. It has been generated by consumer borrowing and an incipient bubble, and it is not—I repeat, not—a real, sustainable recovery. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) pointed out, such a recovery can come about only as a result of rising investment, increasing productivity, growing wages and healthy exports, and none of those is present now.
	Over the last five years, Britain’s business investment has dropped in real terms by a devastating 25%, well below the global average. UK productivity is now almost the lowest among the OECD countries. As we were told by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), UK wages are undergoing the biggest fall since the 1870s, and are still falling. As for exports, Britain’s deficit on traded goods is still running at a
	mountainous rate of over £100 billion a year. If that is a recovery, then God help us if we ever experience a downturn.
	So has the Government’s economic policy failed? Not necessarily. It all depends on what we think the Government’s objectives really were. If the objective was to cut the budget deficit, as they claim, then yes: I think that the last three years of unending misery and austerity have involved a momentous waste of resources in return for almost nothing. According to the Government’s own figures, the budget deficit was £118 billion in 2011 and £115 billion in 2012. Like those who engaged in trench warfare during the first world war, we have advanced a few dozen yards, and have taken enormous casualties in order to do so. No sane person would continue with such a policy at such expense in blood and treasure, yet here we have a Government who are determined to slog on with exactly the same policies, and—as with the generals in the first world war—the cost is not to them, but only to the poor squaddies who are sent over the top.
	My last point relates to a recent speech by the Prime Minister, which I am amazed he gave, and which I think will come back to haunt him. He said that even when the deficit was paid off—and I think that that time could be nearer to 2030 than 2020, given the direction in which we are going—there would be no restoration of spending that had been cut. The Tories, he proclaimed, believed in
	“a leaner, more efficient state”.
	What he really meant, of course, was a fully privatised state in which you had better succeed in the market, because otherwise there will be precious little help from public sources when you need it.
	As for “efficient”, was that G4S at the Olympics? Was it Serco charging for tagging prisoners who had already died or left prison? Was it the big six energy companies ruthlessly profiteering at customers’ expense? Was it the water companies indulging in a profit bonanza for top executives and shareholders, but trying still to charge taxpayers? Was it outsourcing in the NHS, which has led to longer waiting lists and an inability to cope? Was it the free schools that have been set up in areas where there is an abundance of places, while other areas where there is a shortage of places are abandoned? Lean and efficient? Come on!
	I really do not believe that the Tory leadership sees the prolonged austerity and the economic disaster that have been visited on the country over the last five years as a failure at all. The Tories see that as merely the price to be paid—although not, of course, by them—for attaining the real objective, which is a permanent squeezing of the public sector and a shrinking of the state. That is what they want to do if they win the next election, and that is why I believe they will not win it.

Ian Swales: The Opposition do not have a monopoly on understanding the pressures on people or on wanting to do something about the cost of living. I represent the fourth poorest ward in the country, and I am well aware of the pressures that my constituents face. They know that they will not cut their cost of living by borrowing money and running up interest
	costs. They also know that shutting their eyes, going into denial and spending £4 for every £3 of their income will lead to tears. Sadly, the Labour Government did not understand those things, and everything did end in tears. This Government are now having to clear up the mess.
	As we have heard, the way to deal with the cost of living crisis is to get the economy moving and to get manufacturing going again, and I welcome all the steps that the Government are taking in that direction after the catastrophic halving of our manufacturing industries under Labour. The Government can do two things about the cost of living: they can take tax and spend measures and they can interfere in industry and business. On tax and spend, I am proud of the Government’s action to scrap Labour’s fuel duty escalator, saving £7 on a tank of fuel, to scrap Labour’s beer duty escalator and to give free child care to 260,000 two-year-olds and, from next year, to three and four-year-olds.

Graham Jones: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fuel duty escalator, but I wonder why he omitted to mention the rise in VAT from 17.5% to 20%, which also affected the price of fuel.

Ian Swales: The £7 that I mentioned is net of the £1.50 VAT increase.
	Interest rates are being kept down, and council tax has been frozen for three years in many areas. Sadly, my Labour council has preferred to take money out of people’s pockets rather than taking Government money to keep the council tax down.

Tom Blenkinsop: As a fellow MP in the Redcar and Cleveland borough council area, the hon. Gentleman will know that, between 2003 and 2007, the coalition Lib Dem, Conservative and independent council raised council tax by more than 25%, which was more than during the previous four years or the following four years under Labour.

Ian Swales: The hon. Gentleman has an excellent memory. I think that people will judge the council on how it is spending the money that it raises.
	This Government have also scrapped Labour’s national insurance hike and, above all, implemented the Lib Dem policy of raising the tax threshold to £10,000.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Swales: I am sorry; I have taken two interventions already.
	We hear a lot from Labour about wages, but it is what ends up in people’s pay packets that really counts. When Labour left office, people on the minimum wage were paying a massive £35 a week in tax and national insurance. Since then, the minimum wage has gone up by £20 a week, but the national insurance bill for those people has gone down by £9 a week, with a further cut to come in April.

Angie Bray: In my constituency, there are fewer people unemployed, and employers welcome the cut in national insurance contributions because it helps to create more jobs. Also, nearly 5,000 people there are now paying no tax at all. That is the way to help people who are finding life tough: more jobs and less tax.

Ian Swales: I certainly agree with that. I wish that my area was as fortunate with employment, but my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is the direction we should be taking.
	I helped to launch an event for the Living Wage Foundation two weeks ago. It has stated that it
	“supports moves to increase the personal allowance for the low-paid”—
	because they—
	“could make the Living Wage easier to attain.”
	The living wage is about net pay, not gross pay.
	I have talked about tax and spend measures. I also mentioned interfering in industry. I welcome today’s announcement on payday lending, following an amendment tabled by a Lib Dem peer the other day. The Government have stepped in quickly to do something about the problem. We interfere in industry at our peril, however. The Opposition motion mentions an “energy price freeze”. I worked at senior level in business, finance and industry for more than 25 years, five of which were spent working as an accountant in the electricity industry. I could scarcely believe Labour’s proposal for a price freeze. In three and a half years in this place, I have never heard a policy announcement so guaranteed to achieve the opposite effect to the one that was intended.
	It has been obvious from the start that any business faced with having its prices fixed but its costs varying dramatically, as they do in the electricity industry, would have real problems. Prices would increase before the freeze and after it. Prices that had been frozen could not decrease if the costs reduced. Above all, less investment will take place, especially from new players. So what has happened since Labour’s announcement? We have seen huge price hikes, which I am sure include hedging just in case the public are stupid enough to elect a Labour Government.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Swales: I have already given way and I am in my own time now. Two weeks ago, National Grid said that half of proposed investment in energy was now on hold because of political uncertainty. This week, RWE abandoned the Atlantic array. This is what is happening in the real world of business as a result of the irresponsible announcement from Labour. At Dod’s energy lunch a Cross-Bench peer described how this policy was disastrous for commercial confidence, and he is absolutely right.
	As the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) said, the irony is that the policy protects the big six. When I mentioned that before, the shadow Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), said from a sedentary position that we were protecting the big six by challenging the policy, but that is not true. In my constituency, three new energy investors want to invest—two in fossil fuels and one in renewables. There are US, Japanese and Korean investors behind these projects, but the projects are now in danger because their bankers are wondering what on earth is going to happen to this country’s electricity industry. So this irresponsible announcement by Labour threatens investment and security of supply, and, above all, it will raise prices, both in the short term and the long term. So I urge the Opposition to withdraw the policy as soon as possible to avoid more damage to consumers and to the electricity industry.
	We do need to do things about our energy future. One key thing that must happen is that we must have genuine competition, based on more players. The fact that pay levels are too high in many industries, including the electricity industry, is clear. However, at least this Government are taxing capital gains at a higher rate, taxing pension contributions at a much higher rate and taxing income at a rate 5% higher than under the previous Government.
	A few weeks ago, the shadow Health Secretary made a point about Front Benchers of all parties—I think he was thinking partly of his own. He said that we now see policies developed by people who have been trained—this is about career politicians—to write press releases rubbishing the opposition. We can tell the lack of strategic thinking behind that announcement. The Opposition have shown that they know how to write headlines, but they do not understand business and finance. As always is the case, we cannot trust Labour with the economy.

Stephen Doughty: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Over the past few months, we have seen the spectre of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister on repeated occasions suggesting that everything is rosy and that hundreds of thousands of jobs are sloshing around. It is the old attitude of, “Crisis, what crisis?” Unfortunately, such a view is completely out of touch with the daily, lived experience of many of my constituents and thousands of others across Wales, who have seen one of the greatest falls in real average earnings—a staggering drop of £1,669, or 8%, since the general election, when this Government came to power. They see this Government as out of touch, patronising and complacent; they see a Government on the side of the rich, of millionaires and of banking and energy bosses, as we heard aptly demonstrated by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales). It is Labour Members who are on the side of the British people, with solutions such as capping the cost of credit and payday loans, and freezing energy prices. These real measures would help the real lives that many on the Treasury Bench seem to have little understanding of.

Sheila Gilmore: Does my hon. Friend share my incredulity that the price rises that the energy companies started to announce are being blamed on us because we announced our policy on an energy freeze?

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the energy price scandal has been going on for some time, and that the Government have done nothing to deal with it.
	I welcome any growth and any new jobs in the economy, and I hope that any positive movement in the economy will help people in my area address the massive drop in earnings since this Government came to power. However, I caution that illusions are simply not good enough. The Government repeatedly fail to answer questions about how many new jobs are part-time and, of those, how many are on zero-hours contracts. They also do not say in what sectors those jobs are being created. The truth is that half the new jobs are in low-paid sectors, and that the minimum wage is not always being enforced.
	When I hear the Chancellor crowing about recovery, I am always tempted to ask, whose recovery and what sort of recovery. Is it a recovery benefiting my constituents who are struggling to find well-paid jobs, to pay those soaring energy bills and to put food on the table for their children? Is it helping those who are struggling to cope with the bedroom tax? One well-known local Liberal Democrat member in Cardiff recently said in a tweet that she knew that it was difficult for some people, yet many Liberal Democrats proudly voted for the bedroom tax in this House the other night. It is not just difficult but increasingly impossible for many families across my constituency.
	Let me share with the House three stories that I have come across recently. First—I hope that the hon. Member for Redcar is listening—one of my constituents came to me saying that his monthly direct debit to npower had been increased from £197 to £254 just after he had been reimbursed an overpayment. I contacted npower and found that that was on top of the price rise of 10.4%. For him, the rise is 28.9%, which is extraordinary. That is the sort of issue that is affecting people in the country. How will that man make ends meet over the next few months? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Redcar is chuntering from a sedentary position. As he does not seem to be interested, perhaps he would like to intervene and respond to that sort of example.

Ian Swales: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the likelihood of a price freeze in 20 months’ time will make prices go down or up between now and then?

Stephen Doughty: The hon. Gentleman will know that we called for a price freeze now, but it was the Government who voted against it. He should look at what is happening on his own Benches before making such comments. How is the recovery helping constituents who are being slammed by energy prices?
	Let me give another example. A single father in the east of Cardiff with a 12-year-old daughter who lives with him full-time has just been sanctioned for two weeks for not providing enough evidence of his job search. He has actually provided a lot of evidence. He has been applying for multiple jobs, even in the bar and restaurant industry, despite having a history of alcohol abuse and being advised not to work in that sector. He has always worked and has never claimed social security before. He is not computer literate and has only been given limited assistance with his job search and he is not allowed to submit handwritten evidence of his job search. He is not in receipt of any other social security benefits, so the only money that is coming in is child benefit and tax credits. He has been struggling to manage over the past few weeks. After paying all of his bills, he was left with £3 to feed himself and his daughter. The real tragedy is that his daughter is trying to help the family by bringing home her school lunch because she is worried that she will not get fed at home. He is absolutely distressed and mortified to be in that position. Where is the recovery for him and his daughter?
	My last example is of a gentleman who came to see me at my surgery the other week. He was being sanctioned for being unwilling to travel far away from home. He does not have a car and it was extortionately expensive
	to travel to the area to which he was asked to go and it would have left him out of pocket. As a result, he did not take that job, but he is willing to take any other job that he is offered. None the less, he was sanctioned and his money was put down to just £40 a week. I am fighting on his behalf with the jobcentre. The reality is that he has very little on which to live. He told me that he was not able to put on the heating and electricity. He said that it was not that cold, despite the fact that the weather outside was freezing. He was putting on extra jumpers just to try to cope and to get by—he was in an absolutely awful position. He has worked all his life and now he is not putting on the heating or the electric, so where is the recovery for him?
	Those are the real stories of people living under this Government. They simply do not recognise the rosy picture that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and other Ministers have been telling us about over the past few days. The story across Wales as a whole is equally concerning. More people are hit by the bedroom tax in Wales than in any other area in the UK. Even the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), despite some of his more outrageous comments the other day, has admitted, as Chair of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, that significant challenges are caused by its impact in Wales.
	We have some of the highest energy prices in the country and 1 million households would benefit from Labour’s price freeze. Wales has the biggest increase in those in energy debt compared with anywhere in the UK, up by 24% in the past two years. People are now consistently falling into arrears with the energy companies as a result of those price rises. We have seen one of the biggest falls in real wages across the UK and one of the largest increases in under-employment—that is, people who want to work more hours but are unable to do so because of the types of jobs that are available. They do not recognise the fantasy of the 1 million or so jobs that the Government keep citing.
	I have described some heart-rending cases, but we also heard earlier about food banks. The use of food banks in Wales has trebled in recent times and in every part of my constituency, from Penarth to Splott to Llanrumney, I am seeing increasing numbers of people who are accessing those food banks. That is why I was so disappointed to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), who is no longer in his seat. He attempted to suggest earlier that I had somehow misled the House on his views about food banks. Let me put on the record the reasons for people using food banks that he gave to his local paper, the Barry & District News, on 5 September. He said, and I quote directly, that they were
	“inability to manage money and to budget, addiction to alcohol or substance misuse, bullying at home, neglect by the benefit recipient and a range of other reasons.”
	He did not recognise or comment on the real reasons people are going to food banks: energy prices, low wages, the social security changes or delays that the Trussell Trust says are the biggest reason for people going to food banks, the low incomes that the trust also points to as another such reason, and the debt that many people are getting into with payday lenders, loan sharks and others. I believe that it was right for him to be criticised by local Labour councillors for a local Labour council that is doing an immense amount to
	help people in very difficult times, including working with Cardiff on a collective energy buying scheme to help reduce the pressure from the energy companies, which are ripping off consumers across the country.
	The figures for the whole of Wales tell an even greater story. Some 400,000 people have been hit by the Government’s squeeze on tax credits and social security overall; that can be compared with the 4,000 richest in the country, who got a handout from the Government with the tax cut for millionaires.
	My constituents and people across Wales are asking again and again: whose side are the Government on, who is benefiting from this so-called recovery and who will stand up for them? Time and again, they are left wanting by Tory and Lib Dem Members. They will get a much better deal if they vote for Labour at the next general election.

Alec Shelbrooke: This is indeed a very important debate. We can hear stories from any part of the House about the struggles that our constituents are going through. Indeed, constituents who one might deem to be on very good salaries are struggling, too. Whether someone is on a good salary or unemployed, if they are on a fixed income—including even those on good salaries who have had them frozen—a rise in the cost of living has a direct impact on their lives.
	We must recognise the things we have to try to do to change the situation for the long term. Unemployment in my constituency has reduced by 32% since the Government came to power. We should welcome not only that reduction but the transfer of jobs from the public to the private sector, as quite a few small industrial bases in my constituency are supplying those jobs. As the economy is now turning a corner, growth in the economy and in the productivity of companies will allow wages to go up in line. What I do not support is a false rise in wages.
	The minimum wage is very important; it ensures that people are not exploited, and as the Prime Minister outlined earlier today, if companies are found to have broken the minimum wage legislation, they will be fined a huge amount of money. We hope that will crack down on some of the more ruthless employers. We talk about a living wage—we would all hope to achieve a living wage—but it should not be specified in statute. By increasing wages falsely—in London, by 40%—we ensure that a living wage is always just out of reach.

Sheila Gilmore: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman remembers that exactly the same arguments were advanced, mainly by members of his party, before the minimum wage was introduced. We were told that jobs would be lost—that it would be a terrible thing—but those predictions did not come true, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating his case.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am most grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention because she makes the point that I wanted to make. I did not say that the living wage would cost jobs; I said that it would inflate wages. Many would argue that a lot of people already earn the living wage, and that a statutory living wage would benefit all those
	underneath. But we are all well aware how many people, especially our friends in the unions, would demand a 40% pay rise if it was to go through.
	Ultimately, there is nothing to be gained by inflating wages artificially, as we did in the 1970s. I remember my parents telling me that when they were teachers in the 1970s, they got a 25% pay rise when Harold Wilson came to power in 1975 but it was worthless the following year. The goal is always slightly out of reach. We must tackle the cost of living, and ensure that people’s real wages and real net income can advance to meet it.

Anas Sarwar: The hon. Gentleman’s Government have said that work must always pay, but we still have people who are in work living in severe poverty. More important than just having a job is the level of income, and that is why wages are so important, and that is why the living wage is so important. Does he not recognise that point?

Alec Shelbrooke: I could not agree more. What I am saying is that we need to grow an economy to ensure that we can get to a living wage, and that at the same time we should be looking at how we reduce the cost of living.
	Why is the cost of living so high today? That is the fundamental question. Fundamentally, the cost of living comes down to one very important point—energy. We have had a lot of debate in the House this afternoon about whether to have an energy freeze, but if we freeze energy prices for a fixed period, prices will get ramped up before and after the freeze, as happened with the beer price freeze in the 1960s. We must take a more long-term view.
	How did we end up where we are? It is my personal view—I support what was in our manifesto, and I wish we had moved further on it—that we need to start replacing our power stations, and at the moment nuclear power stations are by far the best way forward. It has taken a lot of effort and lengthy negotiations to get to one nuclear power station; we should be building five or six. But at the same time the world oil price is rising, and will not go down despite what anyone thinks. To put it in context, in 1998 a barrel of oil was $5 a barrel, and yesterday Brent crude was $100 a barrel—I am sure the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) will correct me if I am wrong. I believe that if oil reaches $140 a barrel, there is more economically recoverable oil in the North sea than has already been extracted. That is the reality of the situation.
	Energy prices will not come down, so it is no good having a freeze for a period, because energy prices permeate every aspect of the cost of living—the price of food in the shops, the price of getting to work. We always talk about the petrol price, which has a big impact on getting to work, but we must do everything that we can to reduce the cost of getting goods to the shops, because that hits people’s wages. Since the start of this recession we have been on a wage freeze, if not a wage reduction, to prevent the runaway unemployment that we saw in the past.
	What frustrates me in debates such as that we are having today is not just the barrage of criticism from the Opposition of the way in which the Government have implemented their policies. That is fine; that is what we are in the House for. We are here to say that we
	have a route, we are sticking to it, and we think that it is working, and the Opposition are here to say, “We don’t agree.” But I have not heard any real alternative in the Chamber today. The closest we got—one of the more sensible speeches today—was the contribution by the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), who is no longer in his seat. He actually came up with some suggestions. I did not agree with them—I thought they were pie-in-the-sky thinking—but at least he stood there and put forward some policies.
	Sadly, proposals were completely lacking in the shadow Chief Secretary’s speech. There was a constant barrage on what the Government had, he thought, got wrong, but no recognition of the fact that if we are going to tackle the cost of living crisis, we must tackle its root causes. The cost of living is going up because energy prices are high, and that has nothing to do with the six energy companies—there were 14 when the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, but there were only six by the time he left that office, so it is a bit rich of him to come across saying that it is terrible. The inescapable truth is that the price of oil is not going to come down.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. He talks about having more oil and it being economically extractable, but he will accept that part of the equation is tax. Does he not regret the massive hike in the North sea supplementary charge that resulted in project after project being cancelled, and made certain fields less viable?

Alec Shelbrooke: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the hundreds of millions of pounds of tax credits that the Government have made available to the oil and gas industry will help make that resource more exploitable in future and keep the supplies on. It comes down to a fundamental issue: what do we need to do to tackle the cost of living crisis? What we do not need, and what my constituents do not want to hear, is “It’s your fault for going down the austerity route” or “The collapse of the banks is your fault.” They want to say, “Look, we know all that—we know what’s going on.” That is why in most opinion polls, a majority of people still blame the Labour Government for the economic mess we are in. [Interruption.] It is all very well the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) shaking his head—that is what my constituents tell me, and I am out on the doorstep all the time.

Tom Blenkinsop: rose—

Alec Shelbrooke: I have given way enough. I am sorry—I am running out of time.
	We have to tackle the core issue, and we have to do two things at the same time. The Government are achieving the first one. We have put the economy on the road to recovery following the deepest recession in the history of the nation caused by lack of fiscal control of the banking system—a tripartite system that allowed the banking industry to run wild. Even today, as we see with the Co-op bank, the Labour party is unwilling to take tough decisions with regard to banking. The only public inquiry that the Leader of the Opposition does not want to call for is into the Co-op—I wonder why, but we will find out when it takes place.
	We have to grow the economy, which will lead to wage rises, but we must also have a much longer strategic look at how we supply energy in this country. I agree with the Prime Minister—whether or not what was reported in the newspapers was true, green taxes are regressive, and it is amazing that the Labour party, which has always opposed regressive taxation, says that we should keep a regressive tax and not push it into a progressive tax. At the end of the day, energy prices have gone up. [Interruption.] These are luxuries from the boom time that people can ill afford. It is a disgrace that, despite the fact that we are doing everything that we can to grow the economy, and create real jobs that will last and, I hope, be better proofed against the ups and downs of Government spending in future, people are struggling to deal with the cost of heating and the cost of food. The fundamental cause is the high price of energy. It is absolutely vital that the energy reforms and fiscal reforms introduced by the Government carry on and should only be changed as we move forward with energy policies for the long term, not short-term gimmicks. That is what people need.

Emma Lewell-Buck: The time that I have is nowhere near enough to address the magnitude of the cost of living crisis and the spectacular economic failure of the Government’s policies, but I will try my best.
	The average wage in my constituency, after income tax and national insurance contributions, is £1,319 a month. That budget faces extraordinary pressure as every aspect of the cost of living is on the rise. The average energy bill is £110 per month, which over the course of the year amounts to nearly an entire month’s pay.

Mel Stride: The hon. Lady has just stated that every aspect of the cost of living is on the rise under this Government. Does she recognise that council tax, a very important component of the cost of living, has decreased by 9.5% on average during the period of this Government, yet it doubled under the Labour party when it was in office?

Emma Lewell-Buck: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but he needs to look at the bigger picture, which is what I will go on to talk about—the cost of everyday living in general.
	Water costs a further £30 per month to my constituents. Rent makes another significant impact. A single bedroom property costs £395 a month in the private rented sector. Social properties are, of course, cheaper, but as my hon. Friends have explained on numerous occasions, there are few such properties to go around. Council tax starts at £80, so we need to take that off the overall budget. We are talking about working people who, if they have children, will also need to cover the cost of child care. As Labour highlighted in last week’s debate, the cost of child care is rising five times faster than pay and now amounts to more than £100 per child per week for 25 hours. That is around £460 per month.
	All this leaves the average individual in my constituency with just £244 to live on per month. That needs to cover food, transport, other bills as well as a multitude of other costs that are part of daily life. I admit that this is
	rather a crude calculation, but the fact is that people in South Shields living on this meagre income are the lucky ones. Despite everything, they have managed to hang on to their homes and provide for their families through sheer tenacity and the hard work ethic that permeates my constituency. But what about those who fall below the average? What about those on zero-hours contracts, the 3,592 unemployed, the elderly and frail, the homeless and the rough sleepers? And there are those who are affected by the Government’s bedroom tax, who will lose an extra £450 a year.
	Five thousand children in my constituency live in poverty, and many of them live in households with a parent in work. Some 4,260 of my constituents live in fuel poverty, and 1,440 of them are affected by the bedroom tax. We have a rise in homelessness and a rise in rough sleepers, yet still this Government fail them. This is a Government led by a Prime Minister who said prior to the 2010 elections that the Conservatives
	“are best placed to fight poverty in our country.”
	This is an astonishing claim when we know that over a million people have fallen into poverty on his watch, including 300,000 children.

Alec Shelbrooke: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Emma Lewell-Buck: I do not have time. I am sorry.
	My local citizens advice bureau, despite taking on extra staff, is struggling to cope with the volume of inquiries it has had about debt. The once monthly requests for emergency food aid are now almost a daily occurrence. My local food bank and soup kitchen have seen demand for their service rise to unprecedented levels. Increasingly, the people coming to these agencies, I am told, are in work. This is no surprise, as we now have 1.4 million more people being paid below the living wage than in 2009.
	When I was unemployed, when members of my family and I fell on hard times, I was proud to live in a country where I and they would be able to get help. This is no longer the case. I am still proud of my country, just not of the people who are running it.
	People are turning to payday loans to deal with the hardship they face. Last year in my constituency the average borrowing constituent had debt to the tune of £1,610. We all know how quickly this debt can become unmanageable, with dire consequences for those who owe. But these are not people after easy money. They are working people who no longer have the ability to save for a rainy day.
	As bad as things are for working people, they are worse for the unemployed. In my constituency more than 3,500 people are out of work. The Chancellor said that
	“every job lost in the public sector has been offset by three new jobs in the private sector.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2013; Vol. 565, c. 305.]
	This has not happened in South Shields. I recently held a jobs fair in my constituency, and had great co-operation from local employers, but the total number of jobs that these organisations were able to offer was just over 1,000, well short of filling our employment gap.
	The situation is worse for our young. A constituent of mine told me how his daughter was offered a job interview and forced to travel to Leeds at short notice. She did not have the money to pay for the train ticket.
	When she asked the DWP for help, she was refused it. She is now on a zero-hours contract, and some weeks her pay is lower than when she was claiming benefit—but I suppose this Government do not mind about that, as long as she is no longer contributing to the unemployment statistics.
	In my constituency people come together every day to help those who are struggling, but they find their task harder and harder as levels of need are rising to an unprecedented degree. Organisations such as Citizens Advice, the Key project, Hospitality and Hope, St Aidan’s, Supported Living and St Hilda’s church are all making a difference, but without the Government taking action their task will continue to be a heavy one.
	To sum up, my constituents are great, hard-working, big-hearted people who show every day the ethos of hard work and social responsibility, despite the onslaught of misery caused by this Government.

Stephen McCabe: I have listened with interest to my hon. Friend and to the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke). If there is no cost of living crisis, or no one is responsible for it, why will this Government go down in history as the Government of zero-hours contracts, payday loans, food banks and the bedroom tax? Does not that tell us all we need to know about the cost of living crisis?

Emma Lewell-Buck: My hon. Friend is spot on. This Government are to blame for the cost of living crisis and economic failure in our country.
	In the past, the values of my constituents were rewarded and people could be confident that hard work would bring them security and fulfilment. Now that link is broken. They are made to work for their poverty and the Government fail to uphold their responsibility towards them. We need a Labour Government to restore the link.

Richard Fuller: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), as I have to many Opposition Members, but on the question of what we should do, I have not heard much. The honourable exception was the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), whose speech had some coherence, but I guess he is far too moderate to be included in the Labour party’s Government-in-waiting, assuming that position remains—we hold out that hope.
	The motion is a listing of some of the pain points that many of our constituents are feeling as they look to balance their budgets each week. “I feel your pain” is an important expression of empathy. Empathy is important for politicians of all parties; we have to be empathetic with the constituents we represent. However, empathy is no substitute for policy, and Opposition Members have shown a complete absence of policy in dealing with the points of pain that they can so lucidly set down in their motions. That is why I shall support the Government in the Division later.
	When we have seen a policy from the Opposition, it has often been about ways in which they would seek to intervene in markets. I suggest to Opposition Members
	that Government intervention should always be used sparingly and where it can be effective. The Leader of the Opposition has chosen as his flagship intervention policy one where he cannot be effective, and nor does it make economic sense. As the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) pointed out, the consequence of the Labour party’s position on an energy price freeze has been to crater the willingness of energy companies to invest in effective energy in the long term. It is very sad that just a few weeks after the Chancellor had been to China to secure investment in our energy sector—something that the Labour Government sadly missed out on year after year—the Labour party came up with another policy designed to make our energy more inefficient, rather than efficient, in the long term. If we are going to address some of the issues about the cost of living for members of the public, we have to be honest about what the Government can and cannot do.

Stewart Jackson: On the subject of honesty and admitting the failures of the past, is it not strange that last week the shadow Chancellor told a National House Building Council lunch that a future Labour Government would deliver 200,000 new homes a year when, in their last year in office, the previous Labour Government presided over the lowest number of homes built since 1923? Is there not a huge chasm between Labour’s promises and its record in office?

Richard Fuller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the chasm between reality and certain things promised by Labour. There is also an absence of a basic understanding of economics. It is nice to see the shadow Chief Secretary in his place again. It was not clear from his opening speech whether he understood the difference between deficit and debt, which is quite an important thing to know for someone who wishes one day to hold an important Treasury position.

Christopher Leslie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Fuller: I am very happy to give way. I recognise that the shadow Chief Secretary has been for his economic tutorial, so perhaps he can enlighten us.

Christopher Leslie: That is very funny and droll, but does the hon. Gentleman know that borrowing accumulates and forms at the stock of national debt? Has he figured that much out? If he has, will he tell us whether it is true that, during his time in Parliament, his party has presided over the accumulation of £430 billion of borrowing? Is that not right?

Richard Fuller: Boy, has the hon. Gentleman picked the wrong person with whom to have an argument about debt and the Labour party’s record on debt. Let me enlighten the hon. Gentleman on that record. He will never be Chancellor of the Exchequer, but were he ever to achieve that position—

Christopher Leslie: Answer the question.

Richard Fuller: I am answering the question. I know it is hard for the hon. Gentleman to follow the argument, but I will put it in bite-sized pieces so that he can keep up. It is important for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to
	look at not just the indebtedness of the Government, but at the way in which the entire economy is accumulating debt, which is one of the things that the previous Labour Government signally failed to understand.
	If we look at the United Kingdom’s debt in the mid-1990s and take into consideration Government debt, household debt and corporate debt, we will see that that total indebtedness was, like that of many other OECD countries, two times the size of our national economy. Over the intervening 15 years—which in this country were spent mostly under a Labour Government—other OECD countries saw their total debt go from about two times to about three times the size of their economy, and that includes all of the impact of the financial crisis. One country in the G8—and only one—increased its total debt from two times to five times the size of its economy, and that was the United Kingdom under the previous Labour Government. It is the consequence of that pervasive debt in the economy that is the real cost of living crisis in this country.
	Every family knows that when they have significant debts that they cannot avoid and that they have to pay, their monthly income will be less because they will have to pay back the debt of the past. They are paying the consequences of the Labour party’s failure when in office.

Alec Shelbrooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that, against that backdrop, it is commendable that under this Government and this Chancellor of the Exchequer, the gap between the richest and the poorest in society is the smallest it has been for 30 years? [Interruption.]

Richard Fuller: I see that the shadow Chief Secretary has left for more education on economics. My hon. Friend raises a point about income levels. There is an issue about how we increase the incomes of people at the low end of our economy. How do we make sure that work pays for those people who go out and work very hard?
	Over the past 10 years, the United Kingdom has created a massive level of state intervention to support wages at the low end of the income spectrum. In order to try to improve living standards for people at the low end, we have to encourage employers to somehow pay higher wages. References have been made to the living wage. One of the issues about changing people’s income from the minimum wage to the living wage is that the change to their take-home pay, including any benefits they receive, becomes a very small change in their net income level, because the tapering of benefits takes away nearly all the impact of the increase in wage rates. A change to the living wage is therefore a transaction involving additional cost to the employer and additional benefit for the Exchequer; it does not result in additional pay to the employee.
	We have to be clear about what we are truly promising people as we seek certain changes. It would be good to hear from my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, who I presume will wind up the debate, what answer the Government can give people about their income and about making work pay. What are we doing about their tax and their benefits? For people in work who wish to take on additional hours or to increase their responsibilities and get more pay per hour, what are we doing to ensure that their benefits are not taken away so rapidly? If we
	do that, in the next period of Conservative Government we can continue the battle to make sure that work pays, which is the true answer to any cost of living crisis.

Lyn Brown: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in a debate that goes to the heart of the concerns of the majority in my constituency. Despite some improvement in recent times, Newham is the third most deprived local authority area in London, and the seventh most deprived in the country. It has been there or thereabouts for many decades. People from West Ham are at the sharp end of the Government’s failing economic policy, and are suffering as prices rise and wages stagnate.
	As we have heard over and over again since this Tory-led coalition came to power, working people are now £1,600 per year worse off. While George Osborne—

Mr Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Tatton.

Lyn Brown: I can only apologise, Mr Speaker. I have spent a long time in the Whips Office.
	While the right hon. Member for Tatton is victoriously proclaiming that his plan is working, people in my constituency are really struggling. They are struggling to pay bills, to eat and to provide for their family. This Government have shamelessly failed to offer any support to hard-working people in this country, but have provided tax breaks for their friends and let ordinary families bear the brunt of their policies.
	Instead of ensuring that our economy recovered, we have had three years of flatling. This Government have borrowed more in three years than the previous one did in 13 years, and for what? Was it to help hard-working people and to protect the vulnerable, or to oversee the slowest recovery for more than 100 years and to instigate a cost of living crisis?

Alec Shelbrooke: rose—

Brooks Newmark: rose—

Lyn Brown: I will not give way. Two hon. Members still want to speak, and I promised that I would not give way.
	I recently surveyed my constituents—[Interruption.] Government Members may want to chunter, but I would like them to listen, because it is about time that they educated themselves on how difficult this is for real people. I asked my constituents how they are managing their energy costs, which we know have risen by almost £300, thanks to the inactivity of this Government. I was absolutely appalled to discover that 41% of respondents are spending more than 10% of their household income on heating their homes. That is fuel poverty.
	The Prime Minister and his colleagues tell us that the answer is to switch suppliers. Well, 34% of my respondents told me that they had switched, but then found themselves paying more for their heating than they were saving. Most of the 66% who had not switched suppliers told me that that was not because they were happy with their current supplier, but because, “They’re all the same. I would end up paying more.” As for the Prime Minister’s advice on whether to wear a jumper, the response of 97% of my constituents was, “Wow, patronising or
	what?” I agree with them. His remarks encapsulate just how out of touch he is with the everyday lives of ordinary people in this country.
	Many people told me how the rising cost of living is having a detrimental impact on their lives and those of their children. I was told, “In my household, we have to choose a room to heat and we all spend our time in that room.” How on earth do we expect young people to thrive academically in that environment, or even simply get the space to do their homework? I was told, “I don’t have the heating on as long as I’d like to, to save money”, and “We don’t heat our home until it’s nearly freezing inside.” Premature winter deaths soar in cold weather when people are not able to heat their homes. The most recent statistics show that Newham is ninth out of the 32 London boroughs for the number of excess winter deaths, despite it having the youngest population in the UK.
	Paying the heating bills is only one part of the cost of living crisis. In the year to March 2013, rents increased by 2.7% on average across the country. In Newham, rents increased by 15% in the same period. That is an average of £135 more per month. Let us also put into the mix the lack of affordable child care, the difficulty in finding and holding on to employment, and the impact of zero-hours contracts on people’s ability to pay the rent. All those issues have become weekly or even daily concerns for people who live in Newham.
	Under this Government, the cost of nursery places has risen by 30%—five times faster than pay. How do the Government think hard-working people in my constituency and in the other constituencies we have heard about, who are often on the minimum wage and are living in expensive private sector accommodation, can afford that hike? What advice would they offer my constituents who are working long hours just to make ends meet and who are worried about decent, affordable child care for their families? How would they advise people in my constituency who are struggling to pay exorbitant rents, but are living in overcrowded and often substandard private sector housing? What would they tell the young person who is struggling to find a decent, full-time job? I will tell you, Mr Speaker.
	This Government offer empty platitudes. They are out of touch and have no clue what life is like for ordinary working families. They have allowed prices to rise faster than wages in 39 out of 40 months. And when was that halcyon month when wages rose more than prices? It was the month in which the bankers received their bonuses. Does that not tell us all we need to know about the Government? This Government put the wishes of the privileged before the needs of working people. Trust me, Mr Speaker, I could go on and on talking about the abhorrent impact that the cost of living crisis is having in my constituency. The only people who seem to be completely oblivious are the Members on the Government Benches. They care not about the consequences of their cavalier ignorance on the lives of ordinary people. Britain deserves better.

Sheila Gilmore: I am not at all surprised that the Government Members who have spoken in this debate on the cost of living—all of whom, interestingly, are men, with the exception of the
	Minister who will respond—seem so delighted and thrilled that they can come here and talk about a recovery, because something very strange has happened over the past three and a half years.
	In June 2010, the Office for Budget Responsibility made its first pre-Budget forecast before the emergency Budget that we were rushed into because we had to do something about the economy. It predicted that GDP growth would be 2.1% in 2010-11, 2.6% in 2011-12, 2.9% in 2012-13 and 2.7% in 2013-14. It was assumed that inflation would be at its highest at 4.1%. I seem to remember that it hit 5.2% or thereabouts. Of course, the higher-than-predicted inflation was the only reason why the Government were able to boast about record increases in pensions.
	Something happened between June 2010 and now. The thing that happened was the Government’s economic policy. Instead of improving the economy over the past two and a half years—

Brooks Newmark: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sheila Gilmore: Time is very limited, so I will not take any interventions. During that period, economic growth has gone backwards and we have found ourselves in a position of stagnation—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) should calm down, relax, and lower the temperature. He should not get too excited; there is no need.

Sheila Gilmore: That stagnation is why so many of our constituents are suffering so much. I was astonished by some of the comments made this afternoon. The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) managed to suggest that unemployment was not down to the recession but down to the entire period of the Labour Government. In fact, when the global financial crisis hit in 2008, unemployment was a little over 5% at 1.6 million, but by the end of 2009 it had risen by 1 million to 2.5 million. The cause of that rising unemployment, so suddenly and over such a short period, was the economic recession, not the Labour Government. Such rewriting of history is constantly going on. Recently, however, that rewriting seems not just to be about what caused the recession, but tries to read back to the Labour Government and put things into that period that were not the case.
	The stock answer from the Government on what they have done to help people in the cost of living crisis is to talk about the increase in the tax threshold. The problem with that policy is that it unduly helps those who are already better off, and does not help those with the lowest income levels in our communities. Two thirds of the billions of pounds that have been spent on raising the tax threshold has gone to people in the top half of the income scale, because the policy benefits people on higher incomes as much—if not more—as those on lower incomes.
	What has been the quid pro quo? There have been cuts to benefit payments and tax credits, which has cancelled out the rise in the tax threshold for those at the lower end of the income scale. Not only have those paying no tax not benefited, but those at the bottom end who have apparently benefited a little have had that
	cancelled out. That is what we must all remember. Those with the lowest earnings have not benefited from the policy. Both Government parties constantly say that the tax threshold is being raised because they want to help the lowest earners. In fact, that policy has not benefited the lowest earners, because in order to pay for it—it is very expensive—there have been constant cuts to people’s benefits.
	At the extreme end, those who say there has been no change should look around their towns and cities. I have never seen so many quick lenders, payday lenders, and companies such as BrightHouse spring up in such a short period. It was not happening before. Food banks are new in my lifetime—they were something I read about in the history books of the 1930s. One of the Prime Minister’s favourite statements about food banks is, “But usage of food banks went up tenfold under a Labour Government.” The problem with that arithmetic is that 10 times a very small number is still a very small number—from 4,000 in 2005 when the Trussell Trust started up, to 40,000 in 2010. Last year, that figure rose to 347,000, and in the first six months of this year, it has risen to 350,000. That very big number is down to the policies of this Government.

David Simpson: I will be brief, because time is short.
	I listened to the debate with interest. Hon. Members can throw punches from now until Christmas eve about who is to blame, but the reality is that hundreds of thousands of people in the United Kingdom—men, women and children—are in poverty. It is estimated that 31,000 senior citizens will die because of the lack of heat or food in their homes. That is a tragedy for any country and for this modern day United Kingdom.
	Electricity and gas prices, and water charges, are increasing. People are finding it hard to repay their mortgages and, as we heard, interest rates could go up. People are being hit by the bedroom tax—others will use different terminology. The banks are, and have been, ripping them off. Food banks are increasing. In my constituency, which, at 200 square miles, is not the biggest in the UK, food banks are starting to increase, which never happened before. We are sending millions of pounds per year to fill Strasbourg’s coffers so that people there can waste it on some outlandish project and prop up other countries that have gone into bankruptcy.
	Whenever the general public look at today’s debate, they will wonder what it is all about and ask, “Why should we bother to vote at all? We don’t seem to be getting much out of it.” I believe that, as elected Members, we should get closer to the general public and those who are going through serious poverty. It is a tragedy that people in this country have to choose between heating their homes or going out to buy their normal groceries.
	A major problem we will have in future is personal debt. How that will be solved or dealt with we do not know, but it must be addressed. Millions of people will be in that difficulty.
	Yes, vehicles are being exported to other countries. That is brilliant. Exports in general seem to be fairly good and moving forward, and business is looking fairly good, but the ordinary working class general public currently do not see the benefit of any of it.
	We talk about rebalancing the economy. I agree that we need to do that—it is imperative—but hon. Members have been sent to the House to represent the people of the United Kingdom. It is important that we look at rebalancing the lives of the people who sent us here.

Catherine McKinnell: The most recent GDP figures suggest that our economy might finally have started to turn a corner, which everybody, especially the Opposition, welcomes. We have had three years of flatlining growth under this Government. How much damage has that economic stagnation done? How long will it take the country, families and businesses to recover from a starting point that is so much lower than was promised back in 2010?
	The Opposition motion states that
	“growth of 1.5% is needed in every quarter between now and May 2015”
	just to catch up on the ground that has been lost. Stagnation and no-to-low growth means that the Chancellor’s much hailed deficit reduction plan has been a failure, with borrowing rising—the coalition is set to borrow £200 billion more than it planned in autumn 2010. Will we get an explanation for that? That failure—the slowest recovery in 100 years—means that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor do not have a chance of meeting their promises to balance the books by 2015.

Stewart Jackson: rose—

Catherine McKinnell: I would be interested if the hon. Gentleman answered a question. Does erasing those promises from the Conservative party website mean that people will forget they were made?

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Lady was doing so well. She is airbrushing the previous Labour Government’s record. If Labour is elected in 2015 and the economy is growing, does she recommend running a structural deficit, as the previous Labour Government did?

Catherine McKinnell: It is time for Government Members to take responsibility for the economy: three wasted years, lost opportunities and the loss of jobs and growth as a result of this Government’s failing economic policies.

Brooks Newmark: It is an inconvenient truth for the hon. Lady that in the previous Parliament unemployment in her constituency went up by a whopping 88%. Under this Government, it has gone down 12%.

Catherine McKinnell: There are some inconvenient truths for Government Members. Personal debt has increased on their watch by 33% in my constituency and by a significant number in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
	Hon. Members are keen to refer to the previous Government’s borrowing figures. As of last week, the coalition Government have borrowed more in three years than the Labour Government did in 13 years of government—that is the reality. On every economic test, and on the test the Prime Minister and the Chancellor set for themselves, they have failed palpably. It is clear from the many contributions to the debate that the recovery, which appears to be taking place, has yet to touch the lives of millions of people, contrary to the
	impression given by Government Members. My concern is that things will get a whole lot worse before people see any signs of them getting better.
	Any economic recovery needs to deliver rising standards for all, not just for the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and their friends at the top. We need a recovery that is balanced and built to last. Critically, it needs to benefit every corner and community in the country. Instead, the Government, and the Government Members who support them, continue to bury their heads in the sand. They remain oblivious to the living crisis experienced by millions of families, or, worse, they deny what they hear and see with their own eyes. It is the same old Tory party, aided and abetted by the Liberal Democrats. They are totally out of touch with the reality of life for so many in Britain today who find themselves increasingly out of pocket and increasingly in debt.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I will ask the hon. Lady the same question I asked her colleague, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). What was the absolute level of the deficit in 2010 when this Government took over?

Catherine McKinnell: The hon. Gentleman is obsessed with statistics and keen to detract from the truth, which is that it is this Government who are borrowing £200 billion more than they planned. They have failed to reduce the deficit in the past three years to even a fraction of what they promised back in 2010. It is his Government’s plans that have failed. He should wake up to that fact.
	I go back to the people who are paying the price. There is the single dad in my constituency who, to pay for the bedroom tax for the room he keeps for his children to stay in, eats barely anything all week and saves the money to buy food for his children at the weekend. The Chancellor would probably call that thrift. There is the GP and his staff who hand out, from their own pockets, the money for patients to get the bus to the local food bank. The Prime Minister would probably call that the big society in action. There is the branch of a well known bank on the outskirts of Newcastle, where 80% of customers have only the most basic bank account. It has young mums coming in on a daily basis in tears because they cannot manage to feed their children and heat their homes. Citizens advice bureaux across the country saw a 78% increase in the number of people inquiring about food banks between February and June this year alone—little wonder, when gas and electricity bills have risen by an average of £300 a year on the Prime Minister’s watch. Households are spending 12% more on food bills than they were in 2007, despite purchasing 4.2% less food, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) pointed out.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Catherine McKinnell: I would like to give way, but I really must make progress.
	Let us cast our minds back briefly to 2010 and the Conservatives’ general election manifesto. They have attempted to wipe many previous pledges from their website and from the public’s memory, but I am afraid they cannot hide the blatant pledges printed in their manifesto. On page 8 it stated:
	“We want to see an economy where not just our standard of living, but everyone’s quality of life, rises steadily and sustainably.”
	What about the Liberal Democrats? We know that their manifesto needs to be taken with a very large handful of salt. They stated:
	“Liberal Democrats want to make the tax and benefits system fair, so that everyone, be they young or old, can afford to get by.”
	They said that Britain was
	“one of the most unequal societies in the developed world, where ordinary people struggle to make ends meet while the richest benefit from tax breaks.”
	Well, we know who voted through the biggest tax break for top earners as soon as they got into power.
	On the back of those election promises, what is the coalition’s record on living standards three and a half years into government? Under this Government, this Prime Minister, this Chancellor, this Deputy Prime Minister and this Chief Secretary, who is not here today, prices have risen faster than wages for 40 of the last 41 months. According to a report published by the TUC over the summer, of all the jobs created since June 2010, four out of five—80%—have been in low-paid industries. The stark reality is that average earnings have fallen in every region and nation of the UK on this Government’s watch. Indeed, the Prime Minister already has the worst record on living standards—none of his predecessors comes close to matching his singular failure on the issue. He is a record-breaking Prime Minister with a record-breaking Chancellor, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) put it so eloquently.
	Let us just remind ourselves, particularly the Liberal Democrat Members previously so concerned about ordinary people struggling
	“to make ends meet while the richest benefit from tax breaks”,
	when the one blip in the Prime Minister’s dismal 40-month record was. In which one month of the last 41 did we see average wages rise faster than prices? Yes, it was April this year, when financial services firms deferred paying up to £1.7 billion in bonuses so that their staff could benefit from the 50p tax cut. At a time when average earnings for working people have fallen by £1,600 in real terms since May 2010, we have a Government who believed that it was right to prioritise giving a whopping tax cut to the highest earners in the country. At a time when almost 1 million young people are out of work, when long-term unemployment remains dangerously high and when the number of part-time workers wanting full-time hours stands at a record 1.5 million—another record for this Government—we have a Chancellor devoting his time and attention to taking legal action against the EU’s attempts to limit bankers’ bonuses to just one year’s salary. At a time when people are facing a genuine cost of living crisis, in the face of ever-increasing household bills and diminishing earnings, we have a Prime Minister who seems happy to sit on his hands and do nothing.
	Only today, figures released by the Money Advice Service show that nearly 9 million people across the UK are living with serious debt problems. Staggeringly, 18% of Britons—8.8 million people—consider themselves to have “serious” financial issues. Many hon. Friends raised those issues on behalf of their constituents, including
	my hon. Friends the Members for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) and for Inverclyde, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). We heard none of that concern from the Government Benches. We have a Prime Minister who is clearly happy to let ordinary people pay the price for his economic failure and that of his Chancellor. They are the people who, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister will never meet and whose lives he will never understand.
	What could the Government be doing about this crisis? It is all about priorities. With the cold winter months now upon us, it is time to stand up for hard-pressed families by supporting our energy prize freeze. It is time to do something about the staggering rise in the cost of child care—up 30% under this Government—which is preventing people from getting to work. It is time to do something about housing and to ensure that as well as helping people to buy we help people to build. We also need to do something about unemployment and bring forward the compulsory jobs guarantee.
	It is clear that the Government’s policies have failed on their own terms. On living standards, economic growth and the deficit, the Government have completely failed to meet the goals they set themselves in 2010. The Opposition believe that there are specific, urgent and costed measures that the Chancellor could take in the autumn statement next week to help hard-pressed families and small businesses. The Opposition call on the Government and the Chancellor to wake up to reality and do just that. I recommend our motion to the House.

Nicky Morgan: I thank the 19 hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have taken part in this afternoon’s debate.
	It is said that the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, and the Opposition had a chance to admit they had a problem this afternoon. This debate has revealed the lack of an economic plan from Labour and the cost of a potential Labour Government. It is clear from what he said that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury does not know the difference between a debt and a deficit. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) talked about household debt. She might like to know that household debt, as a proportion of income, was 100% in 1997, grew to 150% by 2007 and was 170% by the first quarter of 2008, but has now fallen by 30 percentage points to 141%, as of the first quarter of 2013.
	Another falsehood spread this afternoon was that the Government had borrowed more in three years than the last Government borrowed in 13 years. Labour increased public sector net debt by £488 billion during their term in office, but the debt this Parliament has increased by £360 billion. The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury talked about record breaking. If he wants to talk about record breaking, how about talking about the record-breaking deficit that his Government left us? What about the broken promise of no more boom and bust.
	Remember that one? We do not hear that any more. The only honest statement we have heard from a Labour MP was from the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who left a note saying, “There’s no money left”. He could not have been more right.
	So what is missing from the motion today? There is no mention of the jobs created by this Government, of the 2.7 million people taken out of income tax, of the council tax freeze, of fuel duty cuts, of the deficit falling by a third, of inflation falling or of employment being at an all-time high.

Robert Halfon: Does my hon. Friend not think it strange that the Opposition, who say they care about the cost of living crisis, voted against cutting taxes for lower earners and raising the threshold? Far from paying for those tax cuts for lower earners through other cuts, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) said, have we not raised taxes on the rich by increasing the capital allowance from 18% to 28%?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is indeed right. I wanted to come to his speech, because he started by talking rightly about fuel duty and the wonderful campaign he has launched to ensure that households are not spending as much as planned under the last Labour Government. I heard his plea for a further cut. I take note, but I make no promises.
	We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), who gave a characteristically positive speech. I note that unemployment in his constituency, including youth unemployment, is down by 20%, which is definitely something to be recognised. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) rightly talked about the recovering economy and about how debt had become endemic under the last Government. He is, of course, absolutely right.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) coined a new phrase that I hope will spread across the Twittersphere and beyond about geeks bearing gifts. I wonder whether he would agree with Charles Clarke, the former Home Secretary, who said of Labour’s energy policy: “My criticism of that particular proposal is I think it is a one-off effort that does not deal with the overall comprehensive issue we have to address. I think there is even a case that some of the recent price rises we have seen might have been a response to the suggestion of a freeze”. That is absolutely correct.
	We heard a wonderful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who talked about apprenticeships, noting the move from 430 to 690 apprentices over the last year. He is absolutely right that for 13 years the last Labour Government failed to tackle the lack of skills necessary for our economy.

Brooks Newmark: Is the Minister aware that every single Labour Government have left power with more people unemployed than when they arrived in power, while this Government are bringing unemployment down?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unsurprisingly, we did not hear that from Labour Members.
	We heard an excellent speech, too, from the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), and I would like to thank him for his remarks, particularly his comments about energy investment and support for manufacturing.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the Minister give way?

Nicky Morgan: I am not going to give way to the hon. Lady, because she did not give way to anyone during her speech.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller) talked about work being the key to recovery, the need to create more jobs and making work pay, which is a critical part of our welfare reforms.
	We heard from the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), who talked about breaking the stranglehold of the big six. It was the last Labour Government who left us with the big six; we started with more and ended up with six.
	I listened carefully to the speeches of the hon. Members for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), of the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), and of the hon. Members for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). What struck me most—I have referred to it before in this place—was the collective amnesia and total lack of understanding among Labour Members of how we ended up with the largest deficit since the second world war, which this Government have tackled by taking tough and difficult decisions.

Alec Shelbrooke: I may be able to help out the Treasury team by suggesting that if the Minister were to visit a scrap metal dealer, she might be able to solve the deficit with all the brass neck from the Labour Benches this afternoon.

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend makes a characteristically colourful intervention and speaks wonderfully, as always.
	The hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) made a point about child care and called for action from this Government. This Government are taking action on that matter, with tax-free child care, increased provision for two-year-olds and increased provision for three and four-year-olds. I would have thought that the hon. Lady welcomed that. I noted her welcome of this week’s announcement on payday lenders by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
	I noted the confession from the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton when he said that the problems did not start with this Government. He is absolutely right about that, but that was the only thing with which I could agree in his speech.
	The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) talked about being on the side of Welsh people. In that case, I am sure he would welcome the 4,560 people in his constituency who have been taken out of income tax entirely since this Government’s changes.
	The only way to deliver sustained improvement in living standards is to take the difficult decisions that this Government have taken to tackle the economy’s problems head-on, delivering a sustainable, long-term recovery for all. The Labour party has demonstrated comprehensively today that it is not up to taking those decisions. I therefore ask the House to reject this motion.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 245, Noes 297.

Question accordingly negatived.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

European Union

That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Colombia and Peru Trade Agreement) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 21 October, be approved.—(Gavin Barwell.)
	The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 4 December (Standing Order No. 41A).
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Housing

That the draft Redress Schemes for Lettings Agency Work and Property Management Work (Approval and Designation of Schemes) (England) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved.—(Gavin Barwell.)
	Question agreed to.

Petitions

Gas and Electricity Bills

Nicholas Dakin: People in my constituency are worried about the rising cost of their energy bills. As the winter looms, they are looking for the Government to take action to protect them from rising prices.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Scunthorpe,
	Declares that the Petitioners support gas and electricity bills being frozen.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce legislation that will freeze gas and electricity bills.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001300]

Tom Blenkinsop: The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of a resident of the UK,
	Declares that under Prime Minister David Cameron gas and electricity bills have gone up by £300 for the average household and further that the Leader of the Opposition Ed Miliband will freeze gas and electricity bills until 2017.
	The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons supports Labour's proposals to freeze energy bills.
	And the Petitioner remains, etc.
	[P001301]

ADMINISTRATION AND INSOLVENCY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gavin Barwell.)

Steve Rotheram: It is a pleasure to lead this debate on administration and insolvency. It is worth mentioning that the empty green Benches are a reflection not of the relevance or importance of the issue but of the incredibly busy lives that most parliamentarians lead.
	The purpose of the debate is to try to persuade the Minister that there should be a
	“mandatory requirement for licensed insolvency practitioners to give greater consideration to the social consequences of companies in administration”
	rather than the current situation where perfectly viable businesses are simply sold to the highest bidder to be disassembled, with their assets flogged off and their work forces devastated.
	The Minister will be aware that I met the Secretary of State to discuss this very issue. I fully appreciate that administrators are under a legal duty to ensure that they get a maximum return for creditors, but there is little, if any, cognisance of the detrimental effect that that can have on the very survival of a company if other factors are not explored, often with a resultant effect on a local community or a negative impact on UK plc. In other words, administrators almost invariably accept the highest bid, which is not always the best bid.
	Before I begin my speech in earnest, I should like to place on record my thanks to both the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State for their co-operation in September when I contacted them in a desperate attempt to save as many jobs as possible when Trigon Snacks in my constituency went into administration.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Before the debate, I received his permission to intervene. Does he think that in the first year of trading, before a business gets into difficulties, the Government or the Minister could give them some indication of what to do when it comes to banks, regulations, skills and rates? Those four things are so critical in the first year of any business to ensure that it gets a second and a third year and that it stops insolvency.

Steve Rotheram: I am certain that those four factors are important, but start-up credit is a major impediment to the long-term success of smaller, micro-businesses. One in six small and medium-sized enterprises goes bust in the UK. In 2011-12, something like 120 SMEs per day were going into administration or liquidation. Anything that Parliament can do to assist those businesses to grow and to take on additional staff can only benefit the country as a whole.
	I also want to put on record my thanks to Unite the Union, which, despite the Prime Minister’s constant jibing, works tirelessly to support its members and which was as determined as I was to see production remain in Liverpool. I know the Minister and her Department are aware of this case, and it is this recent episode on which I wish to focus much of my contribution tonight as it clearly illustrates the issue at hand.
	Trigon Snacks was a nut production factory with an annual turnover of approximately £30 million. The company produced peanuts for pub favourite brands such as Big D and Planters, and the business had profitable contracts with a number of large supermarket chains.
	Following the company’s success at winning an increased order book with Sainsbury’s, Trigon doubled its production, introducing new shift patterns for the work force. That resulted in negotiations between management and the union to reward staff with a pay rise, which they had forgone for many years to secure the viability of the company. Indeed, some of the loyal work force had given more than 30 years of service to Trigon. Everything in the garden looked rosy.
	To meet the new targets, Trigon stepped up production but soon encountered cash-flow problems, due to the purchase of extra plant, material, raw stock and associated manufacturing costs. To meet that short-term liquidity problem, Trigon approached the Royal Bank of Scotland for a loan totalling approximately £1.2 million. Given the developments this week with RBS, this might be another case that requires further scrutiny from the Secretary of State as it is clear that, for whatever reason, the company, despite being profitable, was not awarded the loan. When that loan could not be guaranteed, the business was destined to fail. RBS’s decision came in August and just a month later the business was put into administration. It is also worth noting that at the time of entering administration the company’s stock value alone was £2.7 million.
	Disgracefully, 64 members of staff were handed immediate redundancy notices without prior warning, consultation with their trade union officers or even the courtesy of the administrator’s writing to me as the local MP. That still rankles with those who lost their jobs. Those employees had given decades of service and yet they were called to the works cafeteria for a routine meeting, had their names read out and were then told not only that they were losing their jobs but that they had to go promptly to clear their desks and lockers before being escorted from the premises by security guards who had been hired specifically to oversee that draconian act.
	Having met Unite officials and staff at the factory immediately after the redundancies were announced, I became aware that numerous cases of unfair dismissal were set to be lodged alongside claims for protective awards by the union. Many of those shown the door have found it extremely difficult to find alternative employment despite being skilled factory workers with a wealth of experience.
	I should make it clear that I am not suggesting the administrators did anything illegal, but I believe it was certainly unethical and I told them so. It remains likely that Unite will seek 30 days’ pay for its members through protective awards, a cost that is likely to be borne by the Exchequer. However, once Trigon was in administration only two outcomes were likely. First, the administrator could look to keep the business operational by selling it as a going concern. Although that would not absolutely guarantee the future of the business, it was hoped that those who bought the going concern would maintain production at the site, look to restructure the business, re-launch the brand and invest in improvements. There was another option: it would result in the administrator accepting a bid from a company
	that would close the factory, sell the stock, plant and machinery, transfer production to another site and make the whole work force redundant. In other words, the fear was that an asset stripper would decimate the business for a quick profit.
	In the case of Trigon, despite my best efforts and those of Unite it looked likely that the doomsday scenario would be the most probable outcome and that the administrators, Duff and Phelps, would complete a sale that would maximise a better return for creditors but that would inevitably result in the loss of production at the Liverpool factory.
	That is where I think that the balance is all wrong. I know that the closure of any factory is a tragedy for that particular business and work force, but when it makes no economic sense it is even harder for those facing redundancy to accept. When the result also lands the Treasury with a hefty bill for workers’ redundancy payments and increased benefit bills—not to mention the devastation to the local jobs market, the loss of business rates and the blight of a large empty factory—questions need to be asked. I believe that the need to ensure that administrators take greater control of the social impact of the bids they accept is now even greater.
	The cold reality is that none of those factors could, in law, be taken into consideration by the administrators, and I believe that that is fundamentally wrong and needs to change. Some people may argue that administrators indirectly take all those factors into consideration as they look to keep businesses alive as going concerns, but they do not have a mandatory requirement to consider the social consequences. The law only directs them to make the biggest return for creditors, no matter what the consequences might be for communities.
	At the end of the day, the potential to asset-strip the Walton factory collapsed, as only one bid remained, which set out to retain production locally, and this is where I do give some credit to the administrators for working with myself and the Unite union throughout the evening to secure a deal as a going concern.
	We were lucky. The Trigon factory was saved. It still exists today, in the guise of a new company called Natco, but minus the 60-odd staff originally sacked. I have not given up hope of restoring the work force to its full complement, and getting those workers who were wrongly dismissed back on site. I know that many of them are facing a bleak Christmas for the first time in 30 or 40 years, through absolutely no fault of their own, with, yes, the fiscal costs borne by the state, but the human cost is much more difficult to measure. All that is because the initial shortfall loan could not be agreed with the banks.
	I am aware that when it comes to the process of administration, nothing about what I have described is extraordinary, or dissimilar to the experiences of many others in this place. This is where I believe that reform should be considered, even though I appreciate that it is a complex area of law. The primary legislation governing insolvency is the Insolvency Act 1986. As the Minister is no doubt aware, the last Labour Government radically reformed legislation in this area to modify insolvency laws through the Enterprise Act 2002.
	The raison d’être of our reforms was as PricewaterhouseCoopers explains:
	“The Government’s intention was to create a shift in insolvency culture, with a greater emphasis placed on company rescue and rehabilitation, fairness for all creditors and making it tougher for offending directors”.
	Those reforms achieved a great deal. Indeed, as PWC went on to say, the
	“insolvency landscape transformed; administrations have now largely replaced administrative receiverships as the primary insolvency procedure, and many businesses have been preserved via this route. Furthermore, other solutions have evolved to facilitate the turnaround, restructuring and rescue of businesses”.
	So progress can be made—it has already been made—to change the culture within this field and I am sure that this kind of independent analysis is welcomed across the House. But now I think it is time to go further.
	In the list of responsibilities laid down on licensed insolvency practitioners we need a further mandatory requirement that consideration should be given to the social consequences of every bid they receive and, critically, that they should have the ability to award a sale of the asset that offers the most protection for staff, local communities and the taxpayer.
	My contention is that greater consideration is needed of the impact on the public purse and our manufacturing capabilities. It seems nonsensical to me that greater consideration is not given to the impact that insolvency has on the Exchequer—and, equally importantly, the area in which the closure is proposed. I am not suggesting that those two factors should be exclusive, or that they should be given pre-eminence in deliberations, but there must be some reflection of the wider social impacts of each bid. I am acutely aware that this will not always ensure that asset-strippers are not awarded businesses. I am also aware that it will not always ensure that British workers stay in work and that their jobs will not just be exported overseas once the sale is completed.

Bill Esterson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is coming to the end of his speech, but he is absolutely right about social responsibility being an important part of the way in which insolvency is handled, and I welcome that point. Does he agree that, bearing in mind the example he gave of the way in which the bank has behaved, it is vital that banks change their behaviour so that they take greater responsibility to stop insolvency in the first place?

Steve Rotheram: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, because that is exactly the scenario that I am painting with this company. Trigon was a viable, profitable company with a short-term cash-flow problem that could not get a bail-out from the banks, which, we should not forget, are owned by the people of this country, who rely on those companies to provide them with suitable jobs.
	We must ensure that there is a chance, as in the case of Trigon, where a factory was at the heart of one of the most economically deprived areas in the UK—that is true of Liverpool, Walton and there are areas of social deprivation in my hon. Friend’s constituency too—that other bids are considered that would keep people in work and maintain UK production.
	Liverpool city council has been successful in attracting new industries to our city. In north Liverpool, we continue
	to work to attract inward investment and businesses, and do all that we can to ensure that our workers are in full-time employment, but that is incongruous if the net result is that we haemorrhage jobs from profitable companies, which we give to asset strippers to break up, and sell brand names for products that are manufactured abroad, then import the same products back into the country.

Ian Lavery: Was there any opportunity for the company to access moneys from the Government to prevent that situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency?

Steve Rotheram: The Secretary of State and the Department—I spoke to some officials—were as helpful as they possibly could be. If we had had a longer lead-in period or the company was in administration for a longer period there might well have been investment or pots of money—local enterprise partnership moneys, for instance, or regional growth moneys—that could have been used. Unfortunately, things happened very quickly and it was not possible to access moneys to ensure that the shortfall of £1.2 million was covered.
	If the Minister is not willing to hear my request for a mandatory requirement for administrators to consider the social consequences of each bid, will she not consider the requirement in regard to the consequences for UK industries? That is not protectionism but pragmatism. We simply cannot afford to do nothing and watch good British businesses suffer. For instance, since the global financial crisis, the impact on the retail industry has been severe. According to the Centre for Retail Research in Nottingham, in its update entitled “Who’s Gone Bust in Retail 2010-13”, since the global financial crash, 249 medium and large-sized retail businesses have failed financially, affecting more than 22,100 stores and close to 250,000 employees. We all know the names of those companies—most of them are household names, but they have become infamous for going out of business.
	Not all of those companies were profit-making enterprises in the way Trigon was, but undoubtedly some businesses were wound up that produced a short-term return for asset strippers but that, in the long term, could have been kept alive, and there was no consideration of the long-term social consequences for everyone affected by closure. In other words, I contend that some creditors will have done well out of these administrations, but the workers, the local communities and the economics of the area will have suffered most from their failure, and we must do more to protect society and British industry.
	In conclusion, I expect that the Minister might try to explain that this is a very complex area of law and that it would be difficult to introduce changes as there would undoubtedly be knock-on consequences. I do genuinely understand the problems of best intentions—I spoke to the Secretary of State about this—and the law of unintended consequences, but I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that it would be wrong not to look at what could be done to improve current legislation. The status quo is not good enough.

Jo Swinson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing the debate, and, if I may say so, on his
	rather fantastic contribution to Movember. As we are now nearing the end of that month, I implore him, perhaps on behalf of other hon. Members, not to get the razor out on Sunday so that we can continue to enjoy his fine moustache. What a fantastic cause to raise money for.
	I recognise the interest that the hon. Gentleman has shown in insolvency issues, and in particular his concerns about the impact that insolvency has on local communities when jobs are unfortunately lost. He outlined particularly eloquently the human cost that is paid by those involved in such businesses when they unfortunately enter insolvency. This is especially keenly felt in the run-up to Christmas. In the example he talked about, Trigon Snacks, those 64 individuals are in a very difficult situation, having, sadly, lost their jobs. I extend my full sympathies to those individuals and their families.
	I recognise the efforts and discussions that the hon. Gentleman has had with the administrators and the union in this case. He was right to highlight the positive role that unions can play in such situations. It is all too easy for unions to be demonised in industrial relations, with headlines that tend to focus on circumstances where industrial relations break down and are negative, whereas the day-to-day experience is often of a much more positive and constructive working relationship, helping to create future success for a business that is going through difficulty. Although clearly for the 64 individuals who have lost their jobs there is a heavy price to pay, it is worth noting the success of at least making sure that 110 of those 174 jobs have been saved as a result of the business being sold as a going concern. The input of dedicated constituency Members of Parliament in such cases is not to be underestimated and is cause for congratulation.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about some of the practices surrounding administration, and I will try to set out what the Government are doing to address some of them. He said that the social consequences should be explicitly recognised in the objectives of administrators, and he rightly highlighted concerns where it is the case, or sometimes the perception, that a company is asset-stripped and sold off to the highest bidder without any apparent concern for the wider consequences.
	I would like to provide reassurance by going through the hierarchy of objectives for administrators. The top priority that they have to bear in mind is business rescue—to rescue a financially troubled company as a going concern. That is well aligned with the wider social objectives that the hon. Gentleman seeks to promote, including the interests of employees and other stakeholders. Generally, the best way of making sure that creditors can be paid and jobs can be saved is to ensure that the business can continue as a going concern. If that is not possible, the administrator is required to achieve a better result for the creditors of the company as a whole than would be achieved in an immediate winding-up. Only if neither of those things is possible is it their duty to realise the property and the assets for the benefit of the secured or preferential creditors. We have a system that places priority on business rescue, which is incredibly important and ultimately the best way to secure the jobs of the individuals who are working for a company.
	Regrettably, to have a chance of rescuing a failed company, urgent and robust action sometimes needs to
	be taken to restructure and to reduce costs. That does not necessarily mean that it is the fault of the administration procedure per se; it may be a reflection of the economic reality of a company that cannot meet its obligations. Thankfully, the number of administrations and liquidations has been on a downward trend in recent years. In the 12 months that ended in the third quarter of this year, there were 2,303 administrations, which is about 300 fewer than in the previous 12 months, and the number of liquidations was about 8% lower over the same period.
	The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) asked about the behaviour of the banks. This is not only about what happens when an administration procedure is reached but what we can do to prevent businesses from getting into this situation in the first place. The hon. Gentleman outlined the scenario of Trigon Snacks, where so much stemmed from the declining of a request for a loan. I am sure he will understand that I cannot necessarily comment on the specifics of that loan application, but this is an issue on which we share some general concerns. In fact, this week the BIS entrepreneur-in-residence, Lawrence Tomlinson, published a report in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken a great interest and has referred to the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority, which looks at the role of banks particularly in relation to the support they give to business. The report focuses on significant concerns about the conduct of the Royal Bank of Scotland. We are looking carefully at the evidence in the report to see whether further issues need to be raised within the regulatory bodies regarding insolvency practitioners and whether any legislative framework issues need to be addressed in relation to the behaviour of banks.
	Generally speaking, our insolvency regime is highly regarded internationally. A recent World Bank report rated it seventh—above those of the US, Germany and France—on resolving insolvency. That is partly a reflection of the flexibility of our regime for prioritising business rescue, which helps to preserve value and jobs. That focus, rather than any specific obligation to consider particular affected parties over others, helps to balance everyone’s interests and to create a better business environment, which improves the prospects for preserving these jobs in the long term. However, I absolutely recognise the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises about this case and others.
	Let me turn briefly to some of the other issues raised about insolvency. On the effectiveness of the regulatory regime, we believe that stronger oversight powers would help to improve confidence in it. We will therefore introduce proposals, when we can find time in the legislative programme, to strengthen the powers of the Secretary of State as oversight regulator.
	Concerns have been expressed about the pre-pack administration process, particularly where there are sales back to connected parties. In the light of these concerns, I announced in July that Teresa Graham had been appointed to undertake an independent review of the pre-pack procedure, which we expect to be completed by the spring next year. There have also been changes to introduce a revised practice standard for pre-packs, known as SIP16, which is now in place. The complaints mechanism has been streamlined, with a new single
	complaints gateway to help to make the complex array of regulatory bodies easier to complain about.
	The issue of fees charged by insolvency practitioners has been raised. Professor Elaine Kempson recently provided a review of fees that was published earlier this year, and we intend to make an announcement on the way forward in due course.
	The hon. Gentleman said that in recent years significant progress has been made on insolvency to improve the
	situation. I hope that he is reassured that this Government are very aware of the issues he raises and are taking action on a number of fronts to make further progress in various areas to ensure that all insolvency procedures can deliver the best possible outcomes in difficult circumstances—
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).